Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gitmeshiga: I am not going to intervene in the erudite discussion that is being held by thev above posters but allow me to point out that you do not have an ORIGINAL source to say that the chazon Ish said it is “jaharog ve-al jaavor” to shake a woman’s hand. You quote Kreina Digrasa (a sefer I am not familiar with) and MOaidm Uzmanim that is by R”oshe Sternbuch.Neither of these are original sources. Please provide original sources for your assertion.
mdd: Not much time before shabbos but I think that our halachic thinking may be closer thsn you think. I am not sure what your theoretical aspect means but I know that ,as shown by the Remo and others,circumstances sometimes compel a psak that, otherwise, might be different. Sam2 ‘s definition may be closest. On the other hand, it is clear to me that, from the gemoro onwards, psak preferred a “meiel’ approach. well, have a great sahbbos!
zushy: Obviously you cherish R”Avigdor Miller’s zz’l words. Kudos to you but allow me to disagree totally. Please read some of the writigns of Rav Kook zz’k and you will see how klal yisroel has major national aspirations. Or read some of the writings (including kinos) by R’Jehuda halevi.Not to forget many gemoros who deal with our yearning for a new Eretz Yisroel.
rebdoniel: I went back to teshuvos Horemo and indeed, in teshuvo 125, the Remo justifies one situation where he was ‘mesader kiddushim” on friday evening after the z’man. It is a complicated teshuvo and one should read it thoroughly. However, it is, of course, a “shaas hadechak” in extremis and I think it is a little bit irresponsible to claim (as you did)that te Remo allowed for a marriage on shabbos. yes, you qualified it but one truly has to look at the source and see the severity of “shaas hadechak”.
rebdoniel and Sam2: I doubt that the playing of music in shuls was ever disallowed. Playing it on Shabbos has always been the question in shuls- because playing music is a “shvus” and could be allowed by a non-jew . It was vehemently opposed for the reason that Sam2 is giving: the identity of X-ian music and its adoption by Reform. Hence, Carlebach minyonimm are OK! (I attend many of them).
Sam2- I feel uncomfortable how you are making fairly minor transgressions “Yeihareg V’al Yaavor’ (your spelling). I know some of these are considered “avizrayo” but I kind of feel that the ultimate sacrifice should be for ultimate transgressions- hired murder, incest and idolatry.
rebdoniel: I do marvel at your erudition but it would be useful if you bring us sources for your many claims-such as that the Remo allowed marriage to occur on Shabbat.
mdd: Thank you for trying to put your best foot forwards. However,’bemechilas kevod toroscho”, a few of the posts before you refer to a teshuvas Horemo (124) and I made the effort of reading through it all. The Remo-the Remo!- goes out of his way to find a reason why in Moravia, jews drank ‘stam jenom”.He takes the side of the makilim on this- in direct contradiction to what you said! True, he himself dos not accept the hetter but- to protect Jews in Moravia- he accepts a big “kuloh”.Other examples abound and I can quote you other Teshuvos HoRemo on this!
I have no idea to what you are referring in your quote of “the chillul hashem shailah”.
Sam2: I reviewed my post and you are absolutely right!!! I wanted to write that the Remo does NOT say it is MUTTAR. (as per most rishonim who pasken like Rav, as far as ben jomo goes, see teshuvo).My apologies for a mistype. I seem to make many of them!
He says exactly as you write, that they have a shittah to follow (like the rishonim who pasken like shmuel and Rabbeinu TaM) and therefore, should not be considered sinners. Thank you for correcting me.
rebdoniel and Sam2- it is teshuvo 124 and you can find in hebrewbooks.org (after some search). The Remo does NOT say that ‘stam jeinom’ is ossur. He tries very hard not to accuse the Moravian jews of being “ovrei aveirah’ and therefore not to be believed. Hence, he finds a hetter for them (see teshuvo)to pasken like shmuel and rabbeinu TaM).Actually, it is an absolute proof to what has been said forever, that Poskim do find ways to use a hetter if circumstances need it. In moravia,circumstances needed it, but elsewhere not!
nechoma: thank you-you are absolutely right about the j”S!
scientists= a troll? anyone using the word “shebang” is suspicious in my eyes!
nisht: i must say I laughed at your comments! please forgive an old geezer for mistypes! BTW-Sam2 wrote the same way
Sam2- my plain question was that ifit such an “issur chomur”, a different understanding could not be accepted. You are absolutely right in what you wrote about ‘derech chibah” but this was my point, that “negiah” per se is not “jeiharog ve’al jaavor”.it depends upon the circumstances.
TOI- Why whould you care on iota about who is Chief Rabbi? The people you associate with don’t eat from its hechsher, don’t get married by its Rabbonim,don’t go to any of the schools/yeshivas that they organize, why would you care? YOU CARE because in Eretz Yisroel, gradually, people start to respect the medinah and its institutions, so youuare trying to control it. That is fair- but beware, the movement is all to the other side! ( allusion intended)
truthsharer: you hit it on the head! Roshei Yshiva are wonderful people but are not involved in everyday life and this is lacking today in many of the gedolim!
The most hilarious aspect of all these anti-israel,anti-Zionist comments is , that on another thread, they rush to congratulate the new Chief rabbis because the National religous rabbis lost. This is the same Chief Rabbinate that the Brisker Rov zz’l (HaKatan’s favorite anti-zionist) called avdodah zoroh and forbade to go into Heichal Shlomo. This is the same Chief rabbinate that has Rav kook zz’l and all the other Chief rabbis prominently displayed in Heichal Shlomo. What is it, guys? Avodah zoroh or the new coming of the messiah?
Sam2: you write that “N’giah is avizraya d’aroyos and is jeihargeg ve-al jaavor”
How do you explain the hetter (by prominent rabbonim, especially in Germany) taht allowed to shake a woman’s hand when meeting her?
Sam2- Instinctively, I side with you on the Rema. However, as ‘rebdoniel’ seems to have a source , can you enlighten us which teshuva that might be?
To rebdoniel- any source for your assumption?
mdd: I will refrain from saying anything “ad hominem”, so thay your sensitivity does not get bruised. let’s get back to halochos and shaalos uteshuvos.
I do not have the erudition of rebdoniel and/or deep research, but you are wrong to assume that his sources are not valid. I’ll give you two examples for people that you surely must respect.
The Nodah Bejehudah ultimately gives a hetter to shave chol hamoed (well known kuloh) and R”moshe zz’l agrees. Don’t you think this is due to adapting to the circumstances?
R”Dovid Hoffman zz’l ,in his teshuvos “melamed leho’il” allows a gentile woman to convert,even though it is because she wants to marry a jew. (he does it a number of times). Isn’t that adapting to circumsatances? (R”dovid says as much).
There are numeous kulos that have been used for agunos, especially during the two world wars. Don’t you think this is adapting to circumstances?
I could do more research and show more sources but you get the idea. Poskim throughout history have used circumstances to pasken. In yeshivos, you can afford to remain aloof and untouched by life circumstances. Not so to Rabbonim and Poskim.
mdd: Well, for the life of me, I wonder why you could not be more courteous and avoid insults. But leave that aside, all you have to do is look at the actual teshuvos. Not every time does a Possek ‘pasken lekuloh’ but you find an overwhelming amount of reliance on the many aspects of daily life that I mentioned (shaas hadechak, hefsed merubbah….etc) I am not sure why you are so vehement about this, as the evidence is overwhelming against you. It is not a question of “kalim”, it is a question how to pasken when faced with certain circumstances and Rabbonim were faced every day with difficult circumstances, in choshen mishpot, jore deah, even ho-ezer and orach chaim!
Normally, I yawn when i see a long piece and avoid reading it, but when I read some of the comments ,I thought I had to read it in its entirety.
Well, it wss even worse that any of the commenters wrote. The author is wrong halachically, historically and socially. It would take a long column to refute his arguments but he is especially egregious when he writes that those who protect Israel are the cause of all the dangers.I would offer any of the people who may think like him the opportunity of going to learn anywhere in the middle east-say Syria, Iran, Lebanon- and see how long they will live. As a matter of fact ,try learning in france today and tell us how you fare!
mdd: Thank you for your reply. I think that you have a skewed impression of halcoho.No one is saying that you should be mattir something that is obviously ossur, that is ridiculous. But you find in teshuvos that the Possek finds kulos to answer certain questions and uses a variety of life situations- from hefsed merubbah to shaas hadechak, to agunos, etc…to pasken in a certain way, evenb if theoretically one could pasken otherwise.
As far as electricity on yom tov- you are saying that the lighting of a bulb (for example) is “nolad’ which, as you indicate, would be ossur. But the current is already stored and it is not nolad. OR- how about dimming a light on yom tov? the light is there, you only change its intensity and, if you want to say that it is mechabeh shelo lezorach, how about raising the strength of a light? That, surely should be muttar!
mdd- thank for being courteous in your reply! However, I do not understand your response. The thousands of Poskim who had the responsibility of paskening throughout history had to deal with real life and real problems. Often, they adjusted their teshuvos to the circumstances (shaas hadchak, hefsed merubah,etc)Check any teshuvos and you will find a keen acceptance of circumstances.
In yeshiva (a very modern phenomenon, btw) one cound pasken in theory and disregard the consequences. You could not do this in real life.
chacham: I thank you for finding this letter. I did no say categorically that R”Chaim Ozer was one of the makilim. I only had a thought about it. I do know that the Maharsham (the gaon of Brezahn, Rav Shwadron) who was considered THE Possek in Galicia, POland and Rumania allowed it on yomtov.
My question on R’Chaim Ozer zz’l ,if it is “mavir” why is it ossur on yomtov? You are allowed to make a fire on yomtov, and ,at the minimum, you can use “ho’il”.
You should also know that R”Shlomo Zalman (to whom this letter is addressed) thought thst using a microphone (on shabbos mind you!)is only miderabbbonon (check Rav Ovadia Yossef’s shelita, teshuvos)
Thank you for providing the letter (an assist to hebrew books!)
nishtdayngeshfet: You quote the two geonim (R”Moshe and R’Yaakov) who may have considered themselves Roshei Yeshiva -and I am not even sure if they did. (I am not even sure if you can consider R”yyakov zz’l a Possek). You are right that I wrote a definite statement,that “Roshei yeshiva are not Poskim”. Allow me to amend that to- the vast majority of actual shaalos uteshuvos are from Rabbonim of kehillos. I mentioned some of them, I can mention many more, while you will have difficulty finding many illustrious Roshei Yeshiva that were Poskim.
I am not sure what fantasy world I live in. I back up what I say.
nishddayngesheft: You fall prey to the same illusion that so many of your generation fall to. Life and Shaalos and teshuvos did NOT start with the last twenty years. For your information,it has a long history , going back almost two thousand years.I wrote “the vast majority of Poskim”- I did not say all. If you take a look at the Poskim of previous generations, you will see that the vast majority (maybe all), were Rabbonim of towns, not Poskim.
Even the Poskim that you mention (R”Moshe, R’Yaakov) were Rabbonim of towns way before they became Roshei yeshiva. Even “leshitoshcho”, I can quote a long list of present day Poskim and they were all Rabbonim of towns, not Roshei Yeshiva (Rav Ovadia Yossef shelita, the “minchas Yitzchok”, Rav Wosner shelita, Rab Zvi pessach frank and many ,many others)
About Time : You are drinking too much. I have no clue where you find the things you write about me (on this and other threads) and clearly you never learned the “chofezt chaim” . Check it out,it is a good sefer!
And- btw- I clearly said that “I think” that it was R”Chaim Ozer who also held that electricity is muttor on yomtov,so you are barking up the wrong tree.It is also not a contradiction to use it for havdalah (I will have to trust you on that-unfortunately)
I also suggest you read the posts carefully- I mentioned “YOM TOV”, not shabbos, and I clearly gave the reason why. So, before you accuse me of being an “am hooretz”, learn the sugyas. Remember, “Kol hapossel, bemumo possel”
I just found a wonderful antidote to depression: read About Time’s comments. They are so irrational that I burst out laughing!
HAKatan: my reference to Heinlich Himmler and “Mein Kampf” is rather tame to the names that you and your ilk call tens of thousands of jews.
Dash@- Actually, Roshei yshiva are not Poskim at all. The vast majority of shaalos and treshvos are answred by rabbonim, not Roshei Yeshiva. They are too sheltered from reality.
About Time: have you been emptying the vodka bottle tonight?
I never read the obssesive rantings of “HaKatan” or “Health” but the mention by “rational fummie” of Yaakov Rabkin-cited prominently by HaKatan- made me look him up on wikipedia. I had never heard of him before. Well, to cite Rabkin in support of anti-Zionism is like citing Heinrich Himmler in support of “Mein Kampf”.
Rabkin calls Israel ‘an apartheid state”. He is for the dismantling of Israel and the founding of a “bi-national state” (let’s see how long such a state would have jews in it…) and- this will warm HaKatan’s heart-he says that Judaism and Zionism cannot co-exist.
Yup, a very respected voice……..
DaasYochid: you emphasized the first part of his quote. I emphasized the last part of his quote (it would have far better…) The Taz explicitly says that pikuach nefeh always has priority. To anser the Maharshal’s question from end of maschet taanit- the Taz is compelled to discuss the ‘sechar’-reward. But always you must save the person above all!
DaasYochid; We must be learning different seforim. “lebidik yankel” writes: (I quote): “someone who stops learning because of pikuach nefesh that was not efshar laasos al jedei acherim is doing what the haloch requires. It would have been far better for him to have continued learning”.
“memechilas kevod toroscho: the Taz does NOT say that. On the contrary, he writes (I quote) :” ein dovor ho-omed bifnei pikuach nefesh” He dismisses the derisha who says that talmud torah is before pikuach nefesh (!) and does not bring down the Perisha that does say what you said. From the mishmo-os of the taz is clear that pikuach nefesh is above all. HE DOES SAY that the “sechar” (reward) for talmud torah can be greater than pikuahc nefesh, quoting the gemoro end of Taanis.In actuality, however, you must save souls first.
pixelate and others: in the early days of electricity, there were a number of very big Poskim who allowed it to be used on Yom tov. The “Maharsham’ (the gaon of Brezhan,Rav Schwadron) held that way. I am of the impression thatR’Chaim Ozer grodzinsky was of the same view, although i am not sure about him.In any case, even if you accept some of the reasons for electricity (mav-ir, boneh, mevashel), it is only on shabbos that it is ossur- there may be many hetterim for yom tov, because of “ho’il”.
BTW- In Poland, galicia, Hungary and the like, the “Mogen Avrohom” was (still is) the psssok upon one relies. In Russia, it was the shulchan aruch Horav. The mishneh berurah-and the aruch hashulchan-were of lithuanian origin and were not well know elsewhere.
well, I have not read most of the comments till tonight and , in spite of my position in other postings for a smpathetic understanding of halocho, I don’t understand Rabbi Farber at all. The gemoro already positions that some parts of the Torah were written by Moshe rabbeinu but ,absolutely, the whole Torah ws written by order of HKBH. I fail to see why “many voice ” is a barrier to accepting that the whole Torah is ,not only min hashomayim, but written by direct instruction of HKBH. There are new studies in Bbiblical narrative (Sterneberg, Perry and others) but why would that-chas vecholilo- negate divine origin? If Sahkespeare can write in many voices, “al achas kanah vekamaH” HKBH.
lebidik yankel: shavua tov! I checked the Taz that you mentioned but, “bemechilas kevod toroscho” -iy is just the opposite that you said. THe Taz totally DISAGREES with the “Drisha” (on Tur) that espouses the line that you said. The “perisha” (same author) has a slightly different explanation of the gemoro “sof Taanis”. The Taz vehemently disgrees and says explicitly that nothing supersedes Pikuach nefesh.
TOI and health and others: The jews in germany lived in great harmony and “coexistence” (actually too much coexistence!) for centuries…with rather tragic results….
lebidik yankel: please bring down the place where you said the Taz said what you quote. It sounds absolutely wrong.
I try hard not to dismiss anyone- but it doesn’t always work. What “health” has been writing umpteen times is so far out of the realm of reality that it is quite safe to ignore him. HINT: Look at your syrian neighbour to realize what happens if you give free rein to the murderous hordes.
lebidi yankel: Please read the post by jewishfeminist02, quoting Shimon Gutfreund , and you will find plenty of “mareh mekomos’ about the chiyuv of defending and protecting Jewish lives.Although it does not directly deal with our argument about “milchemes mitzvah”, it is enlightening to see how Poskim dealt with war and dangers for jews.
I do not agree at all with your saying that -once one is “osek bemitzva”-you do not stop to wage war. It has nothing to do with what you are doing now. It has everything to do with what the war is about.
You seem to have read the sugya- so you will know that everyone agrees that certain wars are either 1) milchemes mitzvah according to rabbonon or 2) milchemes chova according to R”jehuda.
These are milchemes shivas ammemim, amolek and the Rambam adds- to save Jewish lives. In those circumstances, everyone-EVERYONE- stops what they are doing and wage war. (gemoro and Rambam)
Certain wars according to all are milchemes horeshus- these are wars of conquest (such as Divid Hamelech and Suria) and for these you only enlist certain classes of people, exemting first year marrieds,etc.In those circumstances, you may be able to exempt learners.
Lastly, the machlokes is for a war that is “to diminish the forces of the kutim so that thwy do not attack you”-typically a pre-emptive war.On this, the rabbonon hold it is reshus, R’Jehuda holds it is mitzvah. On this,says the gemoro, the difference would be whether -if the war is considered a mitzvah-you do not have to stop to do other mitzvos but continue waging war. R’Jehuda says you continue to wage war and the rabbonon say you stop to make other mitzvas (see Rashi) There is no discussion whether you stop other mitzvas to wage that kind of war and you cannot infer anything from this.The war is being fought and the question is whether you stop to make other mitzvos.
However, all this is academic, because I do believe that Israel is under constant threat and therefore, when attacked,it is clearly a “milchemes mitzvah”. To be able to repulse the enemy, you need training and hence, everyone should be added to the army to know how to fight. How, how much,etc, can be debated but the hysterical response from some of the chareidi rabbonim makes this an impossible task.
lebidik yankel:I suggest you re-read the sugya. What the rabbonon do NOT consider a mitzvah but R”jehuda does is a war to PREVENT gentiles from waging war upon Jews. THAT IS THE PIRUSH of “lime-utei kutim delo leisi aleihu” . Then look in the rambam hilchos melochim where he EXPLICITLY says that a war to save jews from their enemies is a milchemes mitzvah LEKULEI ALMA. (seee Lechem Mishneh). He puts it in the same bracket as milchemes shiva ammemim that is certainly a milchemes mitzvah.
Your pirush of “osek bemitzvah” is erroneous. THE WAR is the mitzvah that pre-empts the obligation of other mitzvas-according to R’jehuda and not according to the rabonnon. It is a preemptive war, as the geomor says, not when the war is alrady happening. In such case everyone is mechuyov-as per gemoro and rambam.
rebdoniel: difficult to respond to your comment unless you give us more details
rebdoniel: difficult to respond to your comment unless you give us more details
to Daas2, Toi, leibedik yankel and others: Sottah mishne and gemoro 44B. Incontrovertably, milchemes mitzvah (or chovah, as per R”Jehuda), everyone goes to war. The only machlokes is whether a war to “diminish the gentiles so that they don’t attack you” is a mitzvah or not. This is the classical case of a preventive war. Otherwise, the obligation is on everyone and the Rambam paskens that way. See Rambam Melochim Perek 5 and mishne 1 and 2. Check melochim Perek 7,mishne 4.The Rambam explicitly includes a war to save jews from their enemies (melochim 5, mishne 1)as a mitzvah.
There is no “petur” for anything in such cases.
When the gemoro in sottah(44B) says “ho-osek bemitzah potur min hamitzvah” ,the gemoro means to say that the mitzvah is THE WAR and therefore people are free from other mitzvas. (see sugya and rashi). The rabbonon maintain that a preventive war is not considered “mitzvah” and therefore people are not free from other mitzvos whereas R’jehuda considers a preventive war a mitzvah and frees people from other mitzvos.
The “petur’ for people who have just gotten married, build a house,etc is only for “milchemes horeshus”- an elective war. A war to protect Jews from the enemies is a milchemes mitzvah and no one is free of his/her obligation.
To all those who have been commenting on “kulos”: This discussion started on another thread where someone (cannot remember who) said that the “halocho is uncompromising”. I replied that this is wrong- the halocho is very compromising and we find that, in the vast majority of cases, the gemoro paskens lekuloh. I brought down many sources (pesochim 74b, aveilus, koach deheteira odif, sofek derabbonon lekuloh, agunos) and I don’t know what all of you are compllining about. Please show me where the gemoro consistently paskens “lechumroh”.
Ben Levi: I am not sure what you are objecting too. As far as Bais Shammai and Bais hillel, sure what you say is correct. This does not change the fact that we pasken overwhelmingly like Bais HIllel- usually the ones who pasken lekuloh! As far as the “koach deheteirah odif’ ,doesn’t this show that it is more appropriate to pasken lekuloh?
Sam2- I have always respected your erudition but,in the case of the army, talmud torah and pikuach nefesh, you are dead wrong. The gemoro in sottah is explicit, and the Rambam paskens that way: EVERYONE goes out to war when you defend Jewish lives (even money, as the Rambam says). The klal of ‘efshar laasos al jedei acher’ does not apply here.In any case, that klal is very circumscribed- you cannot use it for ‘mitzva shebegufo” (I will not put on tefillin because I am learning torah…). You may have an argument as to whether it is pikuach nefesh, whether the army has sufficient soldiers, but you cannot say ” I am learning, therefore I do not have to save Jewish lives”
To all the posters who commented on my modest posts-wow! Did not know it was that important. I cannot answer each individual post but let me say -AGAIN- what I have said so msny times: In general, I believe that the gemoro leans to “Pasken lekuloh”. I have mentioned a host of different sugyos that demonstrate that. Only the gemoro that DaasYochid mentions where the gemoro says that in “d’oraisas” we pasken like the Possek who goes lechumro is about the only time where we find a psak lechumro.And this is because it is a d’oraisa. If you have any other mekor where you find that the gemoro’s ultimate psak is Lechumro, please provide it! They will be far outnumbered by the other mekoros where the gemoro paskens lekuloh.
lebidik yankel: If it is indeed pikuach nefesh, you MUST do it yourself and not leave it to others! G-d forbid that- in cases of pikuach nefesh- one waits for someone else to do it!
Whetehr the army has enough soldiers is debatable- let the army decide.
TOI- and so, the mesorah paskens lekuloh……
DaasYochid and Toi: of course, as you both intimate, it is a “kabboloh” that in a machlokes between Rav Acha and Ravina (the amoroim in this case), where it is not stipulated who is who (chad omar, char omar), we always pasken lekuloh-but it is they “why” that I am interested in. Why would we pasken like Ravina in the whole of shas (when he paskens lekuloh) and suddenly, in three cases we switch sides and pasken like Rav Acha- who is the one who paskens this time lekuloh. What motivates the gemoro to abandon Ravina (who,in these cases, is lechumro)and pasken like Rav Acha? Clearly, as rashi says, because he paskens lekuloh. To me, this is clear evidence that the gemoro prefers to pasken lekuloh.
rationalfrummie: the argument that we are pursuing was whether there is a tendency to pasken “lekuloh” in halocho. I brought down the classical “koach deheteirah odif’ and other mekoros. One mekor, quite obscure, is the gemoro in Pesochim 74B where the gemoro mentions two amoroim and the gemoro paskens lekuleh WHICHEVER amora it is. In other words, if you pasken like one of these amoroim in one case because he paskens lekuloh and ,in another case, that same amoro is “lechumro” and we should accept his view -as we accepted his views previously-the gemoro goes ahead and paskens AGAINST this amoro this time and swiches to his bar pelugto BECAUSE he paskens lekuloh. To me, this is a telling argument that the gemoro prefers to pasken lekuloh always. I do not say that this is always the case, but there are enough cases through Shas and halocho that I can assert this view of “lekuloh”.
rationalfrummie: the argument that we are pursuing was whether there is a tendency to pasken “lekuloh” in halocho. I brought down the classical “koach deheteirah odif’ and other mekoros. One mekor, quite obscure, is the gemoro in Pesochim 74B where the gemoro mentions two amoroim and the gemoro paskens lekuleh WHICHEVER amora it is. In other words, if you pasken like one of these amoroim in one case because he paskens lekuloh and ,in another case, that same amoro is “lechumro” and we should accept his view -as we accepted his views previously-the gemoro goes ahead and paskens AGAINST this amoro this time and swiches to his bar pelugto BECAUSE he paskens lekuloh. To me, this is a telling argument that the gemoro prefers to pasken lekuloh always. I do not say that this is always the case, but there are enough cases through Shas and halocho that I can assert this view of “lekuloh”.