Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
yichusdik- thanks for your information. you have answered one of my own minhagim. My minhag (chasidus vishnitz) was not to fall “Korim” on R’H (only the chazzan) but to “fall korim” on yom kippur during the avodah and,of course, aleinu. In contrast, I davened in many shuls where everyone also “falls korim” on R.H.
I did not know about the ‘first” R’ pinchas Horowitz. I googled him and-wonderful technology- all your information came up there!
The “sheloh”-btw-was called Ysaiah -not pinchas, and was probably a greatgrandson.
In reference to the matteh efraim’s business life, I am not going to open this big can of (excuse me)worms on this question. The Kessef mishneh already started that long ago…and I have had my arguments on this for years…even on this website…
yitai- The food itself may reach the temperature of “bishul’ but it is absolutely not in touch with anything else,certainly not the walls-especially if the food is covered (as it should be) No food ever touches the walls and I do not believe that the walls ever reach a temperature even near ‘bishul’.
hello99- I am not sure how ‘zeli aish’ helps you here. Basically, the argument about microwaves is ,very simply, whether you can use the same oven for both fleishig and milchig (leave pessach aside for now) Especially if you cover the food, I cannot see any reason why not to use it for that purpose.
yichusdik- wow- you sure have yichus and I trust that you have the most important yichus- yichus atzmo! ( you probably know the story about the zero and numbers….lots of zeros have only great worth if there is a one before them!)
A couple of questions: “no full kriah at alenu on R’H'” ??? do you mean “histachavo’oh’? (BTW, the matteh efraim was a businessman, so were his three brothers..)
second , you mention the “first R.Pinchos Horowitz” do you mean the Sheloh? (who was also named horowitz)
Lastly, I never knew that the minhag (chassidim) of making kiddush but not eating in the sukkah on shemini atzeret is from rashi..that’s new to me!
yitay- My point is that ,if there is no real heat- certainly not “jad soledes bo” (which is, at least, 145 degrees), then there is absolutely no reason to say that there are any “bliyot” in the microwave. regardless of your understanding of the psak of ilo-oh or taso-oh govar, there is no heat to include this kind of cooking in the field of “cooking”.
yichusdik- I knew that feivel was a derivative from russian-and meant light (fabian) but you brought the real origin to life ! wow- from phoebus- greek!
I also pay my respects to your whole mishpocho- the bostoner rebbe zz’l and his sons are, of course, also descendants from the “ba’al haflo-oh” who, if anyone would remember, was the Rov in frankfurt an main before the yekkes took over ! ( just some levity)
the custom of cholent on friday nights in yeshiva is of ancient vintage !! many,many years ago (will not disclose how many)in jerushalaim, every yeshiva-especially chevron- had a cholent very specifically cooked for friday night….
pashute Yid- If my memory serves me right- there is an “inyian” of “aseh doche lo saaseh” with a nozir, specifically if he has a “negah”. I do not remember whether the gemoro uses the same reasoning for the total shave (with a razor)as the “aseh” of shaving would supersede the “lav’ of not using a razor. If the gemoro does not use-or need- this reasoning then how can we extrapolate that shaving with a razor is what is forbidden? I’ll try to do the research later…
Without intruding upon the erudite discussion between our two “beki’im”, I have to remark upon hello99’s point that a microwave is “al ho’aish” ….where is the heat? particles being bombarded by waves a “kli rishon” do not make. I would imagine this is the cornerstone of the arguments between those who are mattir a microwave for everything (iytai?) and those who maintain that it is a “kli rishon” (al ho’iash, which makes it even more chomur). I have felt the inner walls of a microwave countless of times just after heating food and never did it show any significant amount of heat.Please explain why this should be ever considered as kli rishon or aish.
For once- this thread is truly illuminating…I am in full agreement with ‘dayazooger’ that this is a “man’s thread” (I wish there were more of these)and I stand in awe before iytai,hello99,popa and all of you who are contributing to this thread. It takes me back many years to the days of learning the sugyos in chullin and joreh deah and it gives me an incentive to go back and look at the sources again.Thank you all.
oomis1105- I fail to see the difference between the beard (hair) and the actual root. Where do you find such a difference mentioned? Clearly, shaving with a razor would be prohibited, yet the roots are no touched.
The prohibition is simple; you cannot cut your beard to the point of ‘destruction’ (in other words, close to the skin) with a knife. simple.
I have only come to this thread late but I rememmber the keffavel about this some years ago. I think that oomis1105 has if right: if you start using microscopes to analyze anything-you cannot eat anything. The Almighty gave us eyes and ,as long as you cannot see it, it can never become treif. Microscopes are becoming more and more powerful and soon you can see microbes,bacteria and the like…as long as you cannot see it to the naked eye, it is muttor.
oomis1105-“destroying” the beard is not prohibited. For ex. you can use ON THE SKIN, acid to shave. This actually was (maybe still is ) used by many israeli yeshiva bochurim . “Mishi” was the brand name. only ‘destruction” by a knife is prohibited. I don’t know what your son did, but “lift and cut” does NOT reach the skin-otherwise, you would have lots of skin cuts and this does not happen. I am pretty sure that “lift and cut” is just a manufacturers hype to sell he shaver and maintain that it is as good a razor. i hesitate to tread upon delicate ground, but it would be easy for women to check whether such a razor is as good as a real razor.
jaymatt19- I did not intend to remonstrate with you.Please relax. I did check the tosfos that you mentioned and, indeed, the ‘baal tosfos’ name is R’chaim ben Mordechai. Very plausibly, it is the same “baal tosfos’ from the previous tosfos on amud alef.
there is still no evidence that the name ‘chaim’ existed pre-middle ages, unless you accept that the name “hiyah” (very prevalent in shas) is the aramaic for chaim.
jaymatt19-just a small correction: the tosfos in “zevachim 27” is “amud alef” in the tosfos “divrei hamaschil”: eleh …it starts “rav Chaim omer…”
jaymatt19-we must have different prints of the seder hadoros.Mine-first part- only goes to page 296.Anyway- the first part has many names (as a mafteach-index) and it includes the name “chaim’ many times.Of course- that name has been around since middle ages-and the tosfos that you mention is in the middle ages. In the second chelek,where he brings down the names of the tannaim and amoraim, chaim does not appear.
BTW- “hiyah” in aramiac means life-just like chaim. maybe this is what you refer to. Nonetheless- the question of many posters remains: why can we -and we did- make up names throughout the centuries and just now we cannot?
derech hamelech- plenty of ‘chareidi” gedolim saw no problem with the name shira (see posters) so this is R”chaim kanyevsky vs. other chareidim.
jaymatt19- twice in this thread ,you said that the name ‘chaim’is ancient one-referring us to the seder hadoros-I have the seder hadoros-chelek sheni-in forn of me,where he lists ALL the tannaim and amoraim and their names. there are plenty of “hiyah” (rav hiyah and many others). There is NOT one called chaim.please clarify your statements!
mw13-see my comment about secret reasons. There are two ways in psak- you have to justify what you are saying (whether you are the Nodah bejehuda or a lonely rov) or you must say that there is a special reason but you cannot disclose the source. In our case, neither of these things happened (unless you accept the point of gilgulim). Therefore, many posters are very skeptical about this whole idea of “old names”.
btw- someone said that “chaim’ is an old name based on the seder hadoros. How far back do we find this name? Middle Ages? certainly not earlier.
yeshivaguy1- I am at loss to understand your point about “aim habonim semaicha”. There are two views about Eretz Yisroel-the satmarer rebbe’s version and Rav Teichtal’s version (the author). I suscribe to Rav Teichtal and Rav kook’s version (yes- I am a black hatter). You may suscribe to the Satmarer rebbe’s version. History will sort this one out. The sefer about names may legitimately quote certain Poskim. the question remains- how do you explain the hundreds-maybe thousands- of names that were invented in the last two thousand years?
mw13-unless R”Chaim actually wrote “mitaam hakomus etzli”-for a very reason that I want to hide, there is no justification not to answer any of the questions posed by the posters- and very simple ones at that. Do you think he would ignore any real question on a sugay or a halachic question and not address it? Of course not.
No one has even mentioned the dozens-maybe hundreds- of aramaic names that the Amoraim had. This was AFTER the bayis sheni. How did they come to make up these names? (also the geonim’s names) If you want to follow this shittah , do so but do not burden other people with the false assumption that certain names cannot be given. Wolf- your question (about a bear)totally wipes that reason away.
jl: first, don’t write “according to this psak”. It is not a psak and the whole thing may very well be false. Second- the tannaim, the amoraim, the neviim even, did not not have “biblical names”(unless novih is biblical in your view). The best I can say about this is what some posters suggested. Maybe the person had special problems- health, parnossoh or zivugim- and hence ,Rav kanievsky said that shirah is not an original name. This is about as far as I can take this whole discussion. In actuality, most names are made up and are fine.
I am inclined not to believe this story…..Simcha is Ok but shira not? bunim (the gerrer rebbe’s name zz’l) comes from the french -“bonhomme-good man”. That is OK, but not shira? the epitome of loshon kodesh?? I don’t believe this story. And what kind of “taanah” is it that it is “zionistic”? Is Boaz (dovid hamelech’s great-grandfather) zionistic? this whole thread does not sound right at all.
derechhamelech- look in the even ezra- he writes (on the ename moshe):’meturgom miloshon mitzraiym”-translated from egyptian.He may mean that he had-another-egyptian name and the name ‘moshe’ is a translation from that name into hebrew.You may be right in this, as the other meforshim (rashi amongst them) try to explain the connection between moshe and ‘meshisihu”.
You will all have to be “mochel’ me but I don’t understand this logic at all. Throughout our history we MADE up names as we thought (Many names are not even hebrew names,i.e. Moshe). Why can’t we make up names today? There are numerous names that have been coined today (liat, for example) Are the yddishe names (yente, faiga,sphrinza,actually a spanish name) any better? sorry I don’t follow that logic at all.
Haleivi: I read the whole of Iggeret Teiman (in translation, of course) and I had to wait till the LAST paragraph in the letter to find what you are saying. The letter is very long and the rambam just has ONE paragraph concerning this oath (one oath only). He does say ( quoting shir hashirim 2-7 and 4-8) that we should not ‘awaken’ the “love”-meaning the redemption, early. However, it is abundantly clear from the whole iggeret that he means to say this only when someone declares himself to be the messiah (see letter) which ,of course, is scarcely the case nowadays with Eretz Yisroel.
Furthermore- the Rambam writes that this can only bring catastrophe and that the people will perish AFTER this has been done. For now, Eretz Yisroel remains a thriving place.
Lastly, nowhere in the “Jad” does the rambam mention these shevuos, suggesting that his words in the Iggeret were meant to discourage people from following pseudo-messiahs, not as an absolute injunction.
itchesrulik: thanks for the encouragement. I have the sefer (published by Mossad Harav Kook) and I will exprapolate the relevant passages concerning the sholosh shevuos. Do you think that the Mod’s will allow me to start a new thread based upon this?
YWN inserted my comments ,but they were truncated. The words on the present comment did not sound as harsh as the words are now. I said to “observateen’ that he should substantiate the quote from R’s.r.Hirsch, Otherwise he would be “insulting” a godol bejisroel- meaning R.S.R hirsch.
Actually, IF there is such a quote it clearly refers to R’Zvi Hirsch kalisher’s attempt to restore “korbonos’ on the Har Habaiys.ON THIS point, there were strong diasgreements between the gedolim of that dor-including R’akiva Eiger and the Chassam Sofer. On that- i can see Rav Hirsch saying what “observateen” mentioned, as it possibly included d’oraisas. It certainly had nothing to do with the ‘sholosh shevuos”.
Itche srulik= the sefer is called “derishas zion”. I’ll try to quote the relevant passages.
observanteen: you better substantiate this charge.
EDITED
bed stuy-have you ever learned the hakdomoh to nezikin by the Tiferes Yisroel?? i suggest you do, as you may be calling him an apikores too.
your question was answered two thousand years ago by Bais Hillel : “Koach dehetaira odif” To permit something is a better way to “pasken”. And, incidentally, your question does not even involve this. Hechserim are an individual thing and you should never question someone even if you don’t accept this hechser.
This is such an old discussion…..”YAWN” Rav Zvi Hirsch Kalisher- a talmid of R’Akiva Eiger- wrote his sefer to answer all of these questions and in it he answered all these kashyas.
ppopa bar abba- I don’t want this to become a private dialogue although I am enjoying it. Basically, there are two ways of making piskei halocho. You can be a ‘collector”-looking at all the previous Piskei halocho and then taking what is the most prevalent. This is what many poskim do today but in truth, it is intellectually dishonest, because they allow someone else to make the decision for them. It is, howeverr much safer, as few people will disagree.
The other-more difficult- way of giving a psak is to delve into the whole sugya and come to a conclusion regardless of what previous Poskim (obviously acharonim) said before. Shaving chol hamoed is a prime example. The Nodah Jejehuda was the first who came up with the hetter of shaving on chol hamoed (I am not going into the details now). Before him, it was always understood that you cannot shave but he saw a change in everyday life and adapted his psak. In a more extreme way, the GRO’s psak that the zemanin are from Netz to shekiah and mincha must be davened before shekia went against the mechaber and the remo.
There are many examples I can give you. The second way is much much more difficult because you are challenging certain precedents and people are afraid to challenge the status quo. This is why R’Moshe’s psakim were so attacked in the beginning. Obviously, when the dor sees you as a giant, then some of your piskei halocho become the norm.
Every possek- I assure you- respects the previous generations. And if Rabby Broyde- as mentioned, comes to a different conclusion, I am absolutely certain that he knows that he is puny compared to the previous gedolim. Nonethelss, he is allowed to give his opinions. So, every cogent argument is allowed. You don’t have to follow it but it is intellectually honest and others are entitled to follow that Psak. I thank you for this interaction.
popa bar abba- on your second comment. Actually, NO. R’Moshe zz’l never paskened this way, and neither did many other Poskim. The GRO disputed the shulchan aruch in his Psakim and other Poskin disputed the REMO at times. An acharon cannot dispute a rishon but can-CAN- dispute any acharon and by the way, they often do. I do not agree with your way of looking at psak.
popa bar abba- I have been reading many of your comments on these threads and most of the time, you are quite rational and instructive. But your assertion that there is no difference between d’oraisa and derabbonons (that is the gist of your post) flies straight into the face of every halocho. Did you know that there are more flexibilities with derabbonon than d’oraisas? An example- “stam jeinom” (a derabbonom) is bottul beshisha (1/6)- real jajin nesech (a d’oraisa) is not. There are a plethora of halochos in joreh deah that will use various ‘snifei hetter” if it is a derabbonon. How about the hilchos aveilus? we pasken that we go ‘lekuloh” because aveilus (after the first day)is derabbonon. And many,many others.
It is actually of crucial importance to know whether something is d’oraisia or derabbonon. it is not to say that one should not follow both in same fashion but there will be some very definite differences if covering a woman’s hair is only derabbonon, starting with the Aruch Hashulchan’s hetter.
I understand your feelinsg that you want to follow your ‘rebbeim’ of the past hundred years but you must understand that this is not how Poskim look at it. They have to go back at the origins of a halocho and understand the issues discussed. Another example: shaving on chol hamoed. The Nodah bejuehuda had to interpret a MISHNE to come to his conclusion. You cannot get earlier than that!
Nonetheless, I have found this thread very stimulating both in its discovery of various ways of looking at a certain halocho and at the people who are responding.
I cannot respond to “feelings’ (yiddishemishpacha). If you feel that a sheitel is not for you, don’t wear it. Others may-if so desired- rely upon virtually all posking that a sheitel is allowed. BTW- “peah nochris” (a sheitel) goes back to gemoro’s times….look it up.
mdd- actually, yes, if I would see someone do something that”looks” like an aveirah, I would 1)first, try to be dan lekaf zechus,like maybe he is driving his car to hospital for pikuach nefesh. 2)if this is not the case, then I would try explaining to him/her that it is wrong and 3) if neither of these is the case, well, maybe there is a way to be mattir this-like ‘cholov’stam’ -the subject of another thread.
mdd-the only think that I know is a “midoraisa” and neither lav or ashe is “halacha lemoshe misinai’ (like certain aspects of tefillin). But the appelation ‘das moshe’ is very specific only to this matter of a woman’s hair. As I said, I don’t know what it means. “iytai’ has showm you many examples where “deoraisa” in the gemoro doesnt’ necessarily mean min hatorah.
oomis1105- thank you for your comments- I could not have said it any better…..
mdd and others: I feel sad when soemone does not follow the Torah, I do not feel outrage because if I feel so, I could not relate to this person and try to make him better. Do you think the barditchever, R’nachman mebreslev, the lubavitcher rebbe and so many others felt “outrage’ at other jews? Did you ever see ,in writing, any thing from all of these gedolim that would disparage other jews? Or did they just settle down and work at making these other jews better? I know where my choice lies.
cherrybim- I am not even sure what your response is. The whole thread is full of posters who have said that, in individual cases, Poskim did allow the woman to take her sheitel off. What are you talking about? I have no need to ask but obviously, there were who did ask and were allowed to do it. The “options’ we take are based on solid hetterim.
Just for those who oppose the “taking off” of a sheitel for divorcees. Look at another thread where the question of covering hair is discussed. If you take the view that it is a derabbonon, then clearly, there can be good reasons to allow it, especially if you consider that it is ‘heferu torosecho”.
I find the criticism that many posters have done of previous generations truly outrageous. I imagine that most of these posters are young. You all live today in a time when everything is given to you.You have yeshivas, kollels, kosher foods, no problem with money. You don’t have an iota of understanding of previous generations. They are all heroes in my eyes because they lived,worked and toiled in difficult times and kept their emunah and fidelity to “yiddishkeit”. They were not perfect but they were true heroes. Remember the gemoro- ‘im horishonim kemalochim….”
EDITED
I wrote an earlier posting responding to “mdd” but it was ignored so let me answer him briefly. Actually, “yitaiy….” has done a masteful job in showing sources whether uncovered hair is d’oraisa. Thanks, especially for the “terumas Hadeshen’ that I did not know.
I wanted to respond to “mdd’ question whether I would be ‘dan lekaf zechus” for the “ovdei avodah zoroh” of bayis rishon? Actually, “mdd’, yes, I would be ‘melamed zechus” on any jew, regardless of the sin. This is how Moshe rabbeinu conducted himself, how the nevi’im acted and how all our gedolim went about for centuries. You should remonstrate them (hochocho) but, in the final analysis, you must be a “senegoir” an advocate for any Jew.
“yitai…” “Short sleeves,pants…are easier to be mattir than uncovered hair” I am in full accordance with you on pants (see bach and other achronim), but I am not sure what you mean by ‘short sleeves”. How about sleeveless? is there a line to be drawn anywhere?
sam2- thanks for engaging in this stimulating dialogue.As far as your last post,concerning milk, I must disagree with you. Once the milk is considered kosher ,it remains kosher forever. Hence, as most cows asre considered healthy, the milk we get from them is kosher and nothing can make them ‘treifa” (you cannot even apply “chozer veniur”, as the milk is considered kosher).
SO,all of your many bottles are kosher regardless whether there may be more than 1.6% of milk from a treifa animal. A chazokoh doesn’t disappear. As a matter of fact, you don’t even know whether the milk comes from a herd that does not have any treifas.I am saying that you don’t need the ta’am of bittul ,unless you know for sure that there is some milk from treifas.
The problem with cows with DA is that we KNOW that in this herd there are some cows who have it and therefore we may not be able to say that there is a rov or a chazokoh.
Anyway- i still don’t see how you this escapes lach belach. I’ll try to answer your other comments in another post.
Now to your last point about “lach belach’ and ‘yovsh beyovesh”. “bemechilas kevod toroscho”, you are comparing apples and tangerines-ok,oranges.
I said originally that ,as the milk from each individual animal is considered kosher (because we do not assume treifas in a normal animal), it cannot become “treif milk’ unless i know for sure that that animal is treifa. Hence, all those thousands of gallons of milk that were produced by many ,many cows enter the factory where they are bottled as kosher milk and there is absolutely no need to use “bittul” in any way. Your example of bottles is not a good one because if you pour out all the milk from these bottles in one container , say you have one bottle of treifa milk and sixty of kosher milk, it is LACH BELACH and bittul would apply. if they remain in their bottles,bittul would still apply, if the issur is not apparent.
sam2- as far as treifa and length of life is concerned, i refer you to Rambam, hilchos ‘shechita”, perek 11 ,mishne 1 (free translation):”Every animal that is possibly subject (sofek) to one of these ‘treifos” (enumerated in the preceding chapters) if it was a male animal and it lived for twelve months it is assured to be healthy (bechezkas shleima) as all the other animals, if it was a female animal, it is until she gives birth” See also mishneh 3 that affirms that all animals are ‘bechezkas beri’im” -healthy animals and we do not question whether they may be “treifa”.
sam2, I know that you are very enthusiastic about your learning but I suggest you check your sources first. Rambam,hilchos “rotzeach ushmiras nefesh” perek 2, mishne 7 and 8(free translation): “one who murders a healthy man or one who murders a sick man that is near death (goises),and even if he murdered a “goises” himself, he is under the penalty of death. And if he is a “goises” by the action of a human being, being that one beat him till near death (and the second one murdered him), he (the second one) is not liable for the death penalty”
Mishne 8: ” the one who murders a ‘treifa”, even thought he (the treifa) goes about town and eats and drinks he is not liable for the death penalty “bidei odom”- by a human bais din”,and every person is assured (bechezkas) that he is a healthy man unless you know for sure that he is a treifa (and therefore anyone who murders a person is liable to the death penalty)
so- yes, if you kill a ‘goises” you are “chaiyv missah’ and if you kill a ‘treifa’ you are not “chayiv missah”. simple fact.
I’ll answer your other points in the next post.
sam2-your first quote is a misconception. Once you accept that the milk from that cow that is milked is kosher (based on rov) it does not revert to a safek ( or treife)afterwards-hence, once the milk that is milked from one cow is kosher, it is totally irrelevant whether afterwards the milk is mixed with hundreds of thousands of gallons of other milk, amongst which there might be treife’s.
I have no idea what your quotes of Rav Elyahsiv and others mean. where do you have “javsh bejavesh” here? (milk is lach by definition)
On the second quote- obviously the Shach disagrees with you and so to most others. Are you telling me that if you murder a person that has a needle in his lungs and will live twenty more years, you are not ‘chayiv”? Preposterous !
And yes-if you murder someone with terminal cancer -it may come under the heading of “Hahoreg es hatreife” and is pottur.
ilovetorah: the marvels of modern technology can help you (and us) access the relevant sources rather easily. Just “google’ “DA COWs’ and you will find a relevant article from the OU on this. Incidentally, the Shach is one source for not calling something treife if it lives a year. See article.And hello99 is absolutely right in his understanding. The element of “shishim’ is only relevant if we KNOW that there was treife milk and it is mixed with kosher milk. The situation here is totally different because (as he writes so eruditely) we can assume that every cow we milk is kosher based on what is the “rov” (majority).
the question of DA cows has been around for years and most poskim are mattir them…mainly because ‘anan sahadei’ that they live longer than a year after the operation and hence cannot be considered treif.
notI and others-clearly it seems to be a minhag in hungarian jewish circles.btw notI–aveilim never wore shoes and only today when we have plastic do aveilim wear shoes.
lastly- “boorvesdik” and similar expressions mean “bare feet” yiddish-german sounds a lot like english! (boer-fiss,got it?)
nfgo3- funny line….although I bet you that three quarters of the readers on this website have NO idea what you are referring to…