Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sam2: This is where we differ. I think that there are many teshuvos where more extreme ways were found to be mattir possible mamzerim- NOTE- I say possible mamzerim, because , until it is adjucated, there are no mamzerim. And yes, I believe that if a chareidi Possek would have done the same he would never, ever be attacked like Rav Goren was.
There are examples in our recent past and previous gegerations where chareidi Poskim issued controversial Piskei halocho and were never attacked like Rav Goren was. (Think R”Moshe zz’l and artificial insemination).You have yet to show me where Rav Goren exceeded any bounds, ESPECIALLY if you support Rav Sherman, which is what happened with the chareidi Poskim.
WOW! I just saw the video clip of the debate on the Rabbanut Harashit between Rav Feuerstein and Benny Rabinowitz of Yated. If there is ANY doubt that the chareidim want to impose their will on the rest of the Jewish people and wil only accept THEIR Rabbonim – this will dispel any doubt. No wonder the public at large is fighting back! Benny Rabinowitz’s accusations are outrageous and they disqualify the rest of jewry!Shameful!
To Sam2- thanks for your input. At least , you have been polite in this discussion and you have brought some concrete sources to it.I still disagree with you on some aspects but we are having a civil discussion.
nitpicker: Please refrain from insults. You don’t know me, you don’t know whether my poster name means anything and you certainly cannot accuse me of wrong attitudes. If I have-in the past- insulted anyone, I have apologized and I always try to avoid “ad hominem’ attacks.
MOshe-D and nitpicker: Did you ever wonder why no one on this blog and probably very few Jews altogether know a mamzer? I mean, there have been thousands of weddings and separations and the like,yet, do you know of a mamzer? More to the point, do you know anyone who ever had that “pessul” mentioned in a shidduch?Well, allow me to quote you two quick stories. In my days in yeshiva (yes, I went to good yeshivas), one of the most prominent Roshei yeshiva of the past generation told this story while learning this sugya:”In the alte heim (old country for non yiddish speakers), if there was such a problem with a (possible) mamzer- in other words, they knew that there was adultery- they sent the child (and maybe mother) away to a distant town or village where he/she was not known and there he/she continued to live as a normal Jew. Reason for this: because of the lack od communication in the old country, they could not check the status and that child -by definition- became a ‘sofek mamzer” and hence was NOT a mamzer at all. That story I can attest to be true Second story: there is a well-known incident with R”Moshe zz’l who was messader kiddushin and ,under the chuppah, the mother of the chosson (or bride, i don’t know) blurted out that the child was not from her husband and therefore was a mamzer and could not get married. R”Moshe zz’l turned to her and said: ” you cannot make yourself a rosho and you are not to be believed” and he continued with the kiddushin.Again, this story is well known.
So, nitpicker and Moshe.D: you can say what you want about me but Poskim through the centuries have used every means possible to avoid mamzerus. And it is halocho BECAUSE of that klal: “soffek mamzer oman rachmono”. Unless you have incontrovertible facts- such as the husband in prison for a long time and the wife getting pregnant, every Possek through the centuries has done everything he could to avoid mamzerus. THAT IS A FACT.
The opposition to Rav Goren was political and the Sherman/Attiya episode just proves it.
Sam2: Thank you for your very thorough research on this matter.I don’t have the means to do the same research. Actually, you have buttressed what I have been thinking all along. Rav Ovadia Josef shelita, throughout his whole life, was one of the meikilin on many matters. Hence, his preponderance in quoting Poskim that you may not find in the average chareidi teshuvo.Same with the Tzitz Eliezer. The only surprise for me is that R’Moshe Sternbuch shelita quotes the “seridei eish”. maybe it is the family connection (Rav Sternbuch has family in Switzerland).All that said, do you think that Rav Sherman (and Rav Attiya) were right in the recent controvesy? And do you think that Rav Goren did not have the authority of doing what he did? If you disapprove of Rav Goren, how can you accept Rav Sherman? At least, the opposite can be allowed in isolated instances, as Rav Goren did . I appreciate your intelligent responses, even as I don’t always agree with them.
Sam2-you will forgive me for not being impressed by your (possible) quotes.You’ll have to show me any teshuvo by a chareidi Possek in the last fifty years that paskens like Rav Unterman or Rav Herzog. R”Zvi Pessach Frank is an exception because he was Rov in Jerushalaim.
The chareidi Poskim in the past century have denied the authority of Poskim that they did not wish to recognize for political reasons. See R”Dovid Hoffman’s “melamed lehoyil” or Rav Weinberg’s “Seridei EisH”, for example. This is not to denigrate the chareidi Poskim but just to show that they will not recognize Poskim that don’t align themselves with their political line. Rav Kook zz’l and the Rov zz’l are in that position too. Check out Rav meshulam Rath zz’l and yo uwill see what I mean. Rav Goren’s erudition was as good as anyone’s but his aggressive stand on the Israeli Army and Israel were anathema to the chareidim. This does not invalidate his Piskei halocho.
The frumguy- just checked and yes, he was certainly still alive a year ago when you see his interview ! He does look every ounce of his age…(90)….bis 120!
beninugman,rebdoniel, Sam2 and others: After all is said and done, what differentiates the Langer case from what Rav Sherman (and Rav Attyia) is not the halachic basis of the different epiaodes but how it was done. AS I said many times, Rav Goren did it ONCE (invalidating a previous geirus) but Rav Sherman invalidated EVERY single geirus by Rav Druckman. That alone showed why the psak din of Rav Sherman was erroneous. he did it by “passeling’ the whole Bais Din- and this is why it had all the hallmarks of chareidi overreach.Furthermore, a dayan of Rav Sherman’s own Bais Din (Rav Shlomo Dichowsky)objected to his psak.
There is more,much more on this in various writings (check out, Dov Zakheim’s -Transforming Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, November 2012)but the bottom line is that the chareidi leadership in Israel was-and still is- intent on controlling all aspects of the Rabbinical process in Israel and that they -and only they- can tell us what is right or not.As an example of this power play, did you know that many chareidi Rabbis would consider a Gyores who wears pants or doesn’t cover her hair as not adhering to kabbolos mitzvos? This surely was never meant to be the baseline.
nitpicker: If you google a bit on this “sugya” you may come across articles by Jonathan Rosemblum (surely a chareidi sympathizer) where he corrects himself and says that Borokowsky indeed was not seen as a shomer torah umitzvos.
shraga18 and grow up already: Did I miss something in recent weeks? Has the Israeli government forced everyone to eat “chazzir”? Has it passed a law forcing people to work on shabbos? or maybe it has confiscated every one’s tefillin? Can you please enlighten me where this apocalyptic view comes from?
popa -Your nonsensical answers to me in an earlier posting deserve that I ignore your comments but I’ll answer your comments in a similar vein: does that make the opponent’s view less political?
Sam2- I respectfully disagree. I am not going to enter into a discussion “whose godol is bigger?” but you are wrong in saying that other dati leumi Poskim were accepted. When was the last time Rav Unterman’s piskei halocho were mentioned? When was the last time Rav Herzog’s piskei halocho were honored? Even Rav Zvi pessach Frank zz’l piskei halocho are on the second shelf because he was close to the Rabbanut. BTW- I don’t know how old you are but I go back to the 1960’s when Rav Goren was the greatest dati leumi Possek in israel and this was his sin: he was an ardent Zionist.
DID some research- art raymond would be 91 today if he is alive. Methinks he passed away some years ago in florida.
WOW! The emotions that this subject engenders! Before answering some of the points mentioned, I will say that,unequivocally, the opposition to Rav Goren zz’l was political. For all of you who accuse me (rightfully so) that I don’t know enough to argue with other great Poskim, I must tell you that Rav Goren learned in the greatest yeshivos (Chevron) ,was considered an “iluy” and, if he would have knuckled under to the chareidi establishment, would have been considered one of the great Poskim of his generation.
He chose another way- he became a zionist, went to the Army and became a vocal proponent of Medinat Israel. THAT – the chareidi establishment could not forgive and they hounded him througout his life.Way before the Langer case, Rav Goren was attacked for everything he did- from the kashrus in the Army, for his strong support of the religious Zionists and others. So please don’t come and tell me that opposition to him was sincere . It was political.
Sam2-Rav Goren had the same credentials as the other Poskim- he just did not fit into the little box that chareidim wanted. Others suffered the same way from the intolerance of the chareidi world.See Rav kook on Eretz Yisroel, see R’Moshe Feinstein on artifical insemination.See other “zionist” Poskim,including your beloved Rav.
As far as the Langer case and halocho. You can see from the hysteria of some posters that they have no clue about history and what Poskim have done to allow agunos to marry and children to be considered legitimate. They have gone to great lengths for this.
I have not read Rav Goren’s psak in full, this case being over fifty years old. Hence, I googled to familiarize myself with that case.
First of all, the person in question (Borokowsky) never was a shomer mitzvos-contrary to what “nitpicker’ says. Secondly, there were four reasons why Rav Goren said that the Langer children were not mamzerim- and only one was the overturning of a previous conversion.
Thirdly- as charliehall says- Rav Goren did it ONCE, and he did it with Kulos, something Poskim have done forever. Rav Sherman’s basi Din and Rav Attias invalidated ALL the conversions that Rav Druckman, without investigating any of them! Now, that is unprecedented. And Rav Attias wrote in the most intemperate way about Rav Druckman.
to mdd and Moshe-D: First, you should know that, through the generations, Poskim have done everything they can to allow children of suspected unions to marry. The main reason is simple:” Mamzer vadai omar rachmono vleo mamzer soffek” (If you don’t know what that means- zil gemor!).In many teshuvos, they go through contortions to find a hetter. R’Moshe did the same. I only said ‘outlandish’ to point out that Poskim grasped at every possibility and they were right in doing so. So, spare me the insults and go look up the many cases.
Beninungman= No one here ever went against halocho-certainly not Rav Goren. But he, like all other Poskim before him, looked for a way out and a kulo. He found it in one case and used it. R”Moshe used it in many cases, to his great credit!
As far as a bais din, look, you or others, dont have to be “meshadech’ with Langer’s children but you cannot “passel’ Rav Goren’s psak ,as he tried his best to help klal Ysroel.
To all posters: To refresh my memory about Rav Shlomo Goren and the “langer case” (that was the family’s name), I googled Rav Goren and Langer. You will see that the reasons that the Poskim of that day who opposed Rav Goren used are exactly the OPPOSITE of the reasons given now to support Rav Sherman. (Incidentally, it was Rav Attias who wrote the first psak ,invalidating the geirus) So, hypocrisy is rampant, except that Rav Goren did it to AVOID mamzerim and the present ruling will bring about mamzerim. There are many other differences but this is the substance of the arguemtn and Rav Goren really had the better of it.
rebdoniel: exactly. If all the facts of the conversion are present, and the Dayanim are shomer torah, the conversion is valid.
wow! The kool aid drinkers have come out en masse! Allow me to answer the comments one by one.
First=the case of Rav Goren was that the woman had children from teh SECOND husband without getting a get. The only way to make sure that these kids were not mamzerim was to invalidate the FIRST husband’s conversion,therefore making her a free woman. Rav Sherman’s psak was just the opposite: he allowed the woman to go free (and presumably get married and have children) and thereby INCREASED the possibility of mamzerim . If you posters cannot see the difference , I cannot help you, your minds are closed forever.
popa- I am not sure where my phraseology differs. I called Rav Sherman by his title and have not shown any animosity towards him. I even even said that he is fully allowed to exercise more stringent acceptance in his Bais DIN. I believe that he erred grieviously when dismissing ALL OF RAV DRUCKMAN’s conversions. Now, that is chutzpah.
Toi- In spite of what you say, no one has actually shown that Rav Goren’s sevoro was not valid.Ironically, all of these rabbonim who attacked Rav Goren viciously now stand up and speak on behalf of Rav Sherman- who did what Rav Goren did. It is correct to say that Rav Goren did it by invalidating a previous conversion ,but he did it to AVOID MAMZERIM. It was a political move by the chareidi establishment to oppose him because they wanted to disqualify Rav Goren- who was equal to them in stature and learning.
Sam2-see above. Rav Goren had a compelling reason to invalidate the earlier conversion- Rav Sherman did not and compounded it by letting the woman go free without a get. I am being very logical.Plus, do you really think that invalidating ALL the conversions was a logical step??
nitpicker- you should be more respectful of your posting name. There was no Bais Din that gave a psak that the children were mamzerim. They would have been that if not for Rav Goren’s intervention. And you must be hallucinating when you say that he “made a shomer mitzvos into a non-Jew’ The man sure wasn’t shomer mitzvos when he went back to his goyishe roots.
AS far as R’Moshe zz’l is concerned, i don;t know the teshuva you are referring to but there are numerous “ammseh rav’ where Rav Moshe did everything not to passel the children.
rebdoniel: I thank you for your compliments. I am neither brilliant nor humble…..I am a graduate of many good (chareidi) yeshivos and I find their positions today at variance with positions that were accepted jsut a few decades ago, on Israel, on kollel, on the matter of “koach dehetaira odif” and many others. Hence, today, I identify with the Chassidim- who actually are quite meikel- or the dati leumi. (Shlomo carlebach zz’l is my other hero!)
Sam2: Actually, it does change the facts. If Rav Druckman’s Bais Din accepted the giyur, it meant that, IN THEIR EYES, it was a legitimate “kabbolos mitzvos”. It is not for Rav Sherman to dispute this. He -Rav Sherman- can have more stringent conditions in his Bais Din but he cannot invalidate the giyur “lemafrea” ! Don’t you think that ,troughout history, different Botei Din had different criteria? (I know that for a certainty – especially if you read the many teshuvos on this). And please remember that Rav Druckman was acting as the main arbiter in giyur in Eretz Ysroel. It was not in Rav Sherman’s authority to change that.
And-please remember what he did (overlooked by everyone here): he was actually “mattir’ (allowed) an “eishes ish” (married woman) to be free WITHOUT A GET based on his interpretation of matters that happened years ago. Now, pray tell me, what is worse, Rav Sherman’s acts -possibly bringing mamzerus into the klal- or Rav Druckman’s acts that really have little material consequence?
As far as Rav Shlomo Goren zz’l- he was absolutely right in what he did- because he tried hard to avoid bringing mamzerus into klal. The chareidi world used it as a political ploy because they were- and stil are -intent on control of religious life in Israel. BTW- R”moshe zz’l too used outlandish reasons to avoid mamzerus in the klal.
Lastly, there is absolutely no connection with the JTS Bais Din, because there we don’t recognize the DAYANIM (as they don’t believe in torah she baal peh). The problem withb a JTS giyur is that their ‘kabbolas ol mitzvos’ is manifestly not what we can accept. Not so Rav Druckman’s Bais Din.
THis is one of the most disingenuous comments made by a partisan hack. First of all, the poor in israel continue to get their welfare checks and chareidi poor are as entitled to it as others. It is the EXTRA money given to the self-declared poor that is at stake here. To imply-as he does- that it is a very special class that” is dedicated to perpetuaing classcial Judaism” and therefore entitled to special attention, is a slap in the face to all ORTHODOX jews throughout the globe who also dedicate themselves to perpetuate classical Judaism. WHAT? Oonly the chareidim kollel guys are Jews? This part of his comments is despicable, in addtion to the other critiques made by other posters.
Sam2:Please show me an example in halocho where one Bais Din can invalidate another’s psak. “ein davar kazeh”. No such thing exists. We don’t have a sanhedrin today and every Bais Din is autonomous. You may not want to accept that ruling but it is inconceivable- and I bet you , never mentioned in choshen mishpot, that a Bais can invalidate another Bais Din’s psak. We are not talking here about a Nossih or a Bais Din Godol that made a manifest error- as mentioned in Torah and Horiyos- but the case before Rabbi Sherman was whether the Bais Din of Rav Druckman did a correct conversion. Even if he had his doubts, it is the height of “chutzpah’ to invalidate the Bais Din and all its rulings.
beninugman: I have not participated much in this discussion but it seems to me that -if what you say is correct about Rav Sherman’s psak- he actually “passels’ the Bais Din that accepted the geirus. I am not sure what is worse-to reject one’s geirus “post facto” (never done before) or his attempt to disqualify a qualified Bais Din. Remember, he tried to disqualify EVERY geirus that Rav Druckman’s Bais Din did. Is that logical?
dveykus613: May I stsrt by saying that I admire you very much. You have sacrificed a lot in life and I just hope that your husband is thankful to you and that he will make you and his familiy proud.
That said, you pointed to the main argument in this discussion (BTW- your quote about nine and three refers to the shemonei esreh where chassidim spend nine hours davening and three hours doing their daily work) Very few people actually want kollel banned. This is nonsensical. What many people complain about-as you can see from this blog-is that every Moshe, Chaim and Mechel must learn in kollel and not just for a year or two but his whole life! That system clearly is irresponsible and goes against what has been tsaught for millenia by our Tannoim,Amoroim and rtishonim.
And then the ones who actually support these Mosdos get rejected in yeshiva and then approached- very cynically- in later life, for money. This is where the resentment comes in.
As far as your quote about our present chachomim-I am not going to enter into a new argument about emunas chachomim but you must know that all the chassidische rebbes and groups are very ambivelant about this and they had to be dragged into accepting the kollel system. Hhassidim,by and large, go to work and contribute. SO, it depends who your chochom is.
rebdoniel: thanks for the very thorough quotes of the gemoro and rishonim on this matter. There is more but you have made a great effort! Thanks!
rebdoniel: thanks for the very thorough quotes of the gemoro and rishonim on this matter. Thre is more but you have made a great effort! Thanks!
rebdoniel: thanks for the very thorough quotes of the gemoro and rishonim on this matter. Thre is more but you have made a great effort! Thanks!
Toi-when did I ever stand up for the Women of the Wall? Where did I ever admire their passion for tefillin? Plese do not misrepresent my views.
rebdoniel!
I appreciated your discussion about very important matters. I support some of your ideas but you will have to answer me hoe do you reconcile a “get me-useh” (where the husband is compeleld) with “kofin oisio ad she=omer rotzeh ani”. I have not been able to delve into that very difficult sugay but this questions is so trabsparent and I don’;t see anyone answering it.
As far as Gyur- we have become so convoluted in oru reasoning that we have totally lost the original way of gyur. AS per Halacha, there should be no requirement that a prospecive ger does all the mitzvos. What is necessary is the “kabboloh”- the acceptance of the obligation. The rest is “zil gemor’- as Hillel told the ger.
Secondly, if a guyur is done ‘kehalocho “(milah,tevilah) then nothing in the world can change that,even if the ger subsequently does not follow the mitzvas. Here again, it is the original intent that is importsnt, not the actual execution.
I have only touched two serious issues where – to my humble mind- we have digressed far, farr from the original intent.
dveykus613: I don’t now you or your husband and you may be one of the exceptions. Please note that the many arguments against your way of life is addressed to the assumption that everyone-just everyone – should follow that way-and that has the seeds of tragedy. No one has ever denied that individuals should continue on this path.The arguemnt is about the masses.
DaasYochid: As said, I will be circumspect in my comments. YOu call my assumptions “insulting,arrogsnt, and ignorant”. Pray,Sir, they sure are not ignorant (plenty of sources shown)- arrogant? because I have shown that the Emperor has no clothes? and why are they insulting- they just point out the tragedy in the making !
DaasYochid: I don’t know you and I am reluctant to continue to argue with you-as it brings me to say loshon horah and I try to avoid insulting people, so, you are free to say whatever you want, I will concentrate on actual facts.
First ,we do not pasken like Rav Nehoroi- The Rambam in Pirush Hamisnayos clearly endorses the gemoro in kiddushin 29A. The Maharsho on Daf 82A (which is the mekor of Rav nehoroi’s saying-pleae note Hello99) clearly says that “les man depalig’ on the mishneh 29A about teaching a profession. As a matter of fact, he mantains that even R”Nehoroi intended to have a job-just that the Torah was the constant. And, tellingly, on 82B, R”Meir endorses a profession- although it is assumed that R”Nehoroi IS R” Meir.
The Rosh too, brings down the gemoro 29a lehalocho.
But enough said. Every gemoro, every rishon, every source you can find (until these past fifty years) instructed people to go to work. Never was there ever an idea that masses of people should rely upon others- whether to learn or otherwise- and not to anything. This is a foreigh concept. You may accuse me of not being to learn a gemoro, I prefer not to put my faith in people who have been wrong on many other matters.
For your information- I have two sons who are learning- HOWEVER- they are not relying on the klal. That is the crux of the matter. You can do whatever you want with your money- but don’t make me subsidize your way of living.
And- for good measure=please check the Rambam “hilchos matnas anyim” perek 10,mishneh 18.
Rebdoniel- thanks for your kind words.
oomis- you and I are the old generation and we have the experience. The young ones will learn to theri detriment.
HakunaMatada: thanks for your comments. I disagree.
DaasYochid: First of all, please don’t insult my intelligence or me. Like most jews,I have a lot to learn still- as I am sure you have!- but don’t insult me with your snide remarks. You only show your total contempt for people who don’t think like you. If you don’t have an answer to my questions (mishne kiddushim still exists, as far as a taught profession), you revert to insults, That is the sign of an ignoramus.
Second- please go and have a secret vote amongst all the mothers who have , Beli Ayin Horah, six ,seven kids and go to work while their husbands smoke away in various kollelim- not knowing what they are actually doing, and then come back to me with the results. Only then will I retract my assertion about the amjority of women not wanting tp be “mocheL” their husbands.
Hello99- We don’t pasken like Rav Nehoroi. Check the gemoro.
I fully endorse the words of “the little I know”. He has it totally right.
DaasYochid: You are being disingenious. The vast majority of women whose husbands are in kollel now do not “forgive’ their husbands the obligation to feed the family. To say that a woman with 5-6 kids (and more) is “mochel” her husband his obligation to feed his family is sophistry. Certainly, some of these men do deserve to continue their studies but the vast majority would gladly change their lives for a normal life where she can take of the house and kids and he works-as has been done for millenia. And what do you make of the “religious obligation” of a father having to teach his son a profession? Should I quote you the maamar chazal that says that someone without a profession will ultimately end being a robber? There are countless of examples by chazal and the rishonim who maintain that the norm is for husbands to go and work. Anything else is a house of cards that will ultlimately collapse-as it is now doing in Eretz Ysroel.
DaasYochid: I am clueless as to what you mean.
DaasYochid: You are talking apples and oranges here. TheRambam maintains that you should never make money off the Torah- he has harsh words against this. He believes that everyone should have a profession and that Torah should be learned and taught without any reward. The Kesef Mishneh -and subsequent acharonim- maintain that it is very difficult for a talmid chochom to make a living without using his Torah knoweldge for that. Hence, says the Kesef Mishne, one CAN use one’s Torah to earn a living- as teacher, Rav or otherwise. That is the gist of their differences.
However, nowhere does the Kessef Mishneh -or any other Possek- allow people to avoid their obligations under the kessubah, gemoro,mishne…etc. Nowhere does the Bais Yossef condone a system where tens of thousands of people rely upon others for decades.At the absolute limit ,there is a concept of “asoroh batlonim” but not “rivvevos batlonim”. So, your point is misleading because the machlokes of the Rambam and the other rishonim has nothing to do with working and feeding one’s family.
DaasYochid; you are certainly referring to another thread snd my comments about the shulchan aruch. BTW- is the kesubah good enough for you? Is the obligation of a man to feed his family in the shulchan aruch? of course, it is.
RabbiPerfect: I know the kesef mishne pretty well and also many of the later meforshim. Whichever way you turn, however, there is absolutely no acharon who will condone that everyone should rely on the klal-until these last fifty years. Suddenly, it is found a “chiyuv’ for everyone to learn all the time and ignore the most basic of Torah obligations. This is the first time in our history that this is so- and the whole house of cards in is collapsing.
rabbi perfect: I haven’t had the time to check upon this Ran- but how aout the ketubah you sign before yo uget married? How about the possuk in mishpotim and the chiyuv of the Torah? how about the gemoro in berachos 35B? How about the mishne in kiddushin , obligating a father to teach his son a profession? I could continue with the Rambam and what he writes about the ones who earn money from their learning, etc. So, just because yo ufound one Ran , I can show half a dozen of more authoratative sources!
good solid yeshiva. Great roshei yeshiva,
avrah: your post is incomprehensible. First of all, the so-called “modern orthodox” name is an american invention and has absoluterly no traction in israel. You can speak about “dati leumi”- which means ‘religious national” and you would be correct.
Secondly- you don’t think that different generations impel different solutions? Did RSR Hirsch adapt to the nineteenth century? Did the early yeshivos in america -having limudei chol through high school- adapt to the americna model? Did the baal shem tov adapt to the problems of eighteenth century russia?
Of course, they all did. It is “jiftoch bedoiro and shmuel bedoiro” Every generation has its challenges. And -just for your attention- the matter of women in religion does pose a new challenge that was not here a hudnred years ago. How to solve it is the present generation’s role.
As far as Rav Ovadia shelita- yo udon’t tbhink his language was intemperate?
mdd: You are certainly right in saying that I have not learned enough! As far as the matter of “novol birshus hatorah”, check the Ramban and you will see that he quotes this as a matter of extra kedusha, even as it is actually muttar (allowed). Clearly, he deals with matters that are allowed as per halacha but the Torah asks us to do something extra. Other rishonim disagree but this is the Ramban. Nonetheless, this Ramban has little to do with the our subject- which is whether one can use his/her own mind in “milei d’alma”.
toi= but this is exactly th point- you may be called a “menuval” you still are “birshus hatorah”!
toi- “menuval birshus hatorah” “Man dekar shemei”? we are talking about allowing individuals to make their own decisions on matters that are not mentioned in shulchan aruch. Nothing to do with your quote! (which comes from the ramban,btw)
popa-I don’t know you at all but you have a real gift of twisting other people’s words. I never denied shemita-these are your words. And, please, I am as familiar as you with the “Aruch hashulchan” (by Rav Epstein)- it is the one with a chelek on “mitvos ho-oretz” ! Don’t insult my intelligence.
And can you tell me why it is ‘apikorsus” to say that anything that is not in the shulchan aruch is not obligatory??
HaKatan: Enough said. Please show me where the three oaths are considered “halacha”.
gavra at work: What yo uwrite may bew true. In other words, if you are a follower of the Chazon Ish and -YBLT-R”Chaim shelita, then you follow his precepts. Otherwise, follow your own Possek.
popa- we quite obviously disagree on many fronts. First, what do you consider “apikorsus”? Pray, tell me, what part of Torah that is obligatory, do I deny? If I disagree with any saying of a Rov ,does that make me “apikorus”?
As far as the “shulchan aruch”, for the umpteenth time, I said that what is in the shulchan aruch is obligatory,.Nothing else. And your remark about shemita is false. The “Aruch Hashulchan” has a whole chelek on “mitvos hatluyos bo-oretz”. R” Yossef Karo did not address it because it was not relevant at the time. The Rambam, by contrast, writes about every halocho (including korbonos,btw) even it is not applicable today. Please tell me what ,in the examples I gave, is obligatory?
At times, I puzzle about R”chaim’s piskei halocho. His assertion that “shira” is not a girl’s name and the girl should get a new name is one of those piskei halocho that are incomprehensible.
popa- we disagree. The border between halachic matters and non-halachic matters can be hazy but many things are very obvious. Why it should be ‘apikorsus’ escapes me.
Btw- shemita is well covered in the Rambam and has many halachic ramifications. Heter mechira is a legitimate halachic tool, so , for the ones who accept it, it is fully allowed by halacha.
Ben Levi: We have a Rambam, Rif, Shulchan Aruch and more. Please show me where the bill for drafting some yeshiva bochorim is considered “shaas Hashmad”. As I said, the halachic rulings on this (gemoro Sotah and Rambam) are PRO-draft! Just because somenone says it is “shaas Hashmad’ doesn’t make it so.And you are correct in saying that I do not accept that description of the situation,regardless who said it.
Sam2- what did you find wrong about my postings?
popa- At this stage, I have no idea what you mean. As I said, many things are covered by shulchan aruch. Many are not. In the latter case, you may feel that you have to act in a certain way and that is fine. But this is not halacha, it is hashkofo and is not binding.
popa-bar-abba: In other words, you don’t allow people to have any brains when deciding what to do with their lives? By definition, if it is not in the shulchan aruch, we do not know what the Torah tells us to do and, ergo, it is subject to our feelings and opinions.
HaKatan! you are always good for a laugh. You would probably bring in your hatred of Zionism if we would discuss how to cook cauliflower.AS said previously on many occasions, I am not going to discuss this matter as opinions are well settled.
In truth, I am not sure what Popa says,either. In very simple language, “milei d’alma” means matters that do not appear in the shulchan aruch and that any opinion thereof is “subject” to the person’s feelings and opinions,rather than hard facts in halacha.