rabbiofberlin

This is certainly a minhag amongst hungarian jews, and it is- as said by some of the posters-because an “avel” cannot wear shoes and hence, we don’t-chas vesholom-want to look like we are in aveilus,either because of an “ayin horah” or because we don’t want the “kitrug” (accusation). As a matter of fact, from the gemoro it seems that the amoraim wore special socks for shabbos as they would go barefoot all week long.

when does he have time ???

The posters have made me grow very nostalgic for the old “shmulke bernstein”. By the way- not all chareidim ate there as his hechsher was from the O-u (or was it Kof-k?). he had marvelous cold cuts and fantastic chinese food…there were lines on motzei shabbos thill 2 and 3 in the morning…Yup- chaval al de’avdim….and the waiters with their funny chinese hats….they sold out to a chinese group that ran it into the ground…and, to be honest, the lower east side changed dramatically these past years…even orchard sreet is not what it used to be….oh…well….

trying my best- itchesrulik is correct. However, R”moshe’s psak has to do with the NUSACH hatefilla, not the pronunciation. For example- German jews and Lithuanian jews both daven ‘nusach ashkenaz’ ,yet they have very different pronunciations. The two items are totally different.

cedarhurst asks ” is there a difference between one erva and another?” Actually, yes. and you can see this from the two “ervas’ that are discussed here- kol isha and uncovered hair.

The gemoro in megillah talks about different women and a man’s reaction to their names. It explicitly differentiates between these different women, saying that yes, things are relative when it comes to ‘soft’ ervas. The Aruch Hashulchan bemoans the habit (in his day) of women going with uncvoered hair, yet alllows krias shema to be said between it has become so common (uncovered hair) it does not rise to the din of erva.(by the way- he was criticized for this psak by the chassidim…). Basically, real ervas that leave no room for interpretation consist of uncovered parts of the body that should be covered. So- called ‘soft ervas” consist of singing, hair and the like that can be considered ‘subjective’ rather than “objective” (uncovered body parts mainly)

before throwing acusations around, one must find out if there is a non-Jewish partner. It has nothing to do with selling the store every week-as smartcookie says- if there is a non-jewish partner who takes the profits from that day, it is actually muttor,although there is a problem if this store is known as a jewish store-then there might be a problem. but,please inquire what is the situation before proclaiming this person to be “mechalel shabbos befresya”.

hello99- thanks for your note. Indeed, in siman Tzadik- bais (92), ‘zeiah” (sweat or more accurately, vapor) is mentioned but- if my memory serves me right- it is in the context of an actual pot and a boiling pot at that, where you obviously see the vapor rise and hence it is considered “mamashos” – something real and solid.

I was talking about R’Moshe’s teshuvos where he maintains that in a regualr oven, there is also ‘zeiah’ from the walls, and it traspires from the walls, thereby making it improper to use the same oven for milchig and fleishig, for example.

ovens are heated and produce dry heat- and if the actual pot is covered, i don’t see how you can say that there is “zeiah”. i juts never understood that teshuvo- especially if you contrast it to the shulchan aruch and the halochos of ovens.(see joreh deah 108)

yitayningwut- thanks for your thougtful reply. your rov is absolutely right- to cover the food. As a matter of precaution, I always cover the food to be “microwaved”, so there is no splatter. you are also correct in saying that the walls of the microwave never attain “jad soledes bo” (try it and you will see) because the mechanics of the microwave is different than cooking. from what was told to me, it “shakes’ the molecules and in this way heats it. because they are “micro” waves they don’t touch mroe than the food and the rest of the “oven” remains fairly cool. the utensil in which the food is stored does get hot- so clearly you cannot use the same pot because it would be ‘bolea’. the actual oven, however, is not hot enough.

as far as the “zeia’ this is a tough sugya and-for whatever reason- R’moshe was machmir on this, especially in a regular oven. I never understood this psak because the shulchan aruch clearly does nto consider ‘reiach’ ossur, and the aspect of ‘zeiah’ is not mentioned in that sugya. i’d like to hear from R’moshe’s talmidim where he found the idea of ‘zeiah’ in an oven.

unless it is really offensive, I would not “censor’ anyone….

many of the posters are giving excellent reasons to justify this mishneh and gemoro and I will not comment upon the merits of this gemoro (I am all for it) but I just want to point out how some posters are very selective in their quotes.”Nat” quotes a “tiferes yisroel” on mishnayos to “explain” this gemoro in a way different from its plain meaning. OK- if the tiferes yisroel (a magnificent commentary, by the way)is so authoritative, do you follow his line of thinking as far as the creation of the world? if you don’t know what he says about, look at his “drush ohr hachaim’ at the end of nezikin. If you follow his line of reasoning on this, you may very well be thrown out of yeshiva nowadays.

My point is not to enter into polemics on this but to show that every person here is very selective in what he quote and follows. Let people decide on what their minhag is and don’t excoriate them if someone has a different view. It may be equally valid.

boy, I needed a good laugh at the end the day and I got it reading some of the posts…thanks, wolf ! (and others)

I am surprised, though, at the words of prof1 who, from another thread i learned went to Torah Vodaath. He says that ‘tu be’av’ was only done “back then” but the “reason” for it is not here today anymore. Suppose I said that about, oh, lighting a fire on shabbos- ‘oh, back then, when it was so difficult you could not but today it is only the flip of a switch” and we don’t need that anymore. THAT woulsd bring everyone down on me as an apikorus. why is the assertion that what happened in the days of the gemoro (tu be’av AND YOM KIPPUR,btw)something that was ‘done back then’ but not today, different? it is the height of chutzpah to assert that minhagim of the gemoro’s time are not relevant anymore.

well, at least a thread that makes people laugh !!! Great comments ,fellows ! and just to let you know how people eat herring in the rest of the world…if you ever go to holland, you will see people stop at small stands, pick up a herring by its tail,, roll it in chopped onions, and swallow it right there and then !!!! these fresh matjes herring (called groene haring)is the BEST in the world !!!

next best id the herring I had in berlin for kiddush -fantastic with a glass (yes-big glass) of vodka ! next best is the herring from egg stores in stamford hill,london. the herring in the US can’t hold a candle to these places.

sorry-had to work today! in answer to pashute yid- actually i meant that it may very well be “mechabeh”- although-if i remember well- i took the opposite view last summer and argued that it is not mechabeh. the point of the argument was that to minimize light is directly is also “mechabeh”. i am pretty sure it was discussed at length and someone may find the thread.

helpful- indeed, I said much earlier that there were FOUR teshuvos by R’Moshe where he discusses Bat mitzvos and so there are. Look in the ~Jad Moshe” ,an index for the teshuvos, and you will find the other one. I do not have the teshuvos at hand but I checked it over shabbos and there clearly are four teshuvos. The reason this is important is that in that last teshuvo(unmentioned in this thread) ,written in Tof Shin Jud Tet- 1959, I think R’Moshe says that you can have a kiddush for the bas mitzvah in the shul if this is the minhag and the girl can speak at the kiddush.I’ll be happy to double check the source again and tell you which teshuvo it is if I am quoting correctly.

as far as the gemoro in sukkos, I just indicated that the idea of “znius” in its acceptable sense- meaning modest and small- does not apply to chasunos as the meaning of “znius” in that gemoro means something else totally.

There have been some references made in this thread to ~znius” at a wedding, quoting sukkah 49B. May I just point out that, if you check the actual gemoro and rashi, it does not mean at all that a wedding has to be made quietly- quite the contrary , the gemoro brackets it with “halvoyas hames”- a funeral, and it is clear that at a funeral, the more people the better.And so is this the case with a wedding too- the more the better- as it is a big mitzvah. what the gemoro means-check rashi -is that you should not conduct yourself “bekalus rosh” with licentiousness and loose behavior.It has precious little to do with the actual size of the mesamchim.

gavra at wrok- thanks for the insights ! I’d appreciate even more if you show me the source of the sahhrey tshuva. your “IIRC” is not something I understand. I presume it is Yoreh Deah- hilchos taa’aruvos.

I have no clue how the words of the Rambam (mentioned in its original by mosheemes2) have any relevance to the long discussion about chazal being right or wrong in some instances.All the Rambam is saying is that we have to believe that HKBH speaks to us through his Nevi’im and that the Torah is G-d given, to its last letter. I have no idea how this impacts the present discussion.

Now -as per our discussion. I think that people have an erroneous understanding of halacha and what halacha means.

In truth, halacha has no direct connection with reality. This sounds strange but ALLOW ME TO EXPLAIN.

We have a halacha of “bittul be’rov”, something can be “absorbed’ by the majority of what surrounds it.

SO, when a piece of pork falls into a pot of kosher meat and is “bottul” (whether Mi’deoraissa with one in two or mi’derabbonon as less than one sixtieth) and you end up eating the WHOLE pot, you are NOT considered having eaten tereifa. because, once the halacha tells us that there is NO treifa meat there, HALACHICALLY that piece of pork turns into a kosher piece. There are some discussions about the pace of eating but the actual Psak is clear.

The halacha of “chatichah na’aseh neveilah” rests upon the same reasoning- in the opposite direction.

Hence, reality is not what directs halacha. It is the OPINION of the Poskim that make it halacha.

That is what the story of “tannur achnai” tells us. Halacha is what the chachomim tell us , regardless of what reality (and heaven clearly knows better) is.

This is also why we can say ‘ele ve’ele divrei elokim chaim”. Both sides of the Psak are -from a halachic point of view- real. We ultimately pasken like one but both are -from a chachomim point of view- correct.

All this, however, relates ONLY to halachic questions.When we have the words of gedolim that do NOT have any relationship to halacha-then, of course, they can be wrong, whether it is science or matters that do not deal with a halachic question.

I would be happy to hear comments on this analysis.

volvie, your reasoning is the crux of the problem. Undoubtedly, the Gra is heavens above us, but if you maintain that the chachomim are infallible-and this applies not only to the chazal,because you attribute infallibility to EVERY godol ,including our generation-then no one has the right to question anyone who is a godol and the Gro cannot make these comments about the Rambam, especially as they pertain to Torah matters, matters a lot more important than scientific facts.

The fact is that, in general terms, acharonim (including the gro) did not dispute the HALACHIC superiority of th rishonim. They did, however, dispute the every day opinions of earlier generations because on that, they were not infallible.

You cannot accept criticism of a later godol if you think that EVERY word of an earlier godol is infallible. The words of the Gro on the rambam are proof that the Rambam was NOt considered infallible by the Gro and it is preposterous to say that the gro was like a rishon. In greatness, maybe, but in fact he would not dispute any rishon on halchic matters.

cherrybim- this has actually happened already. You may know that there is a remarkable DNA study done on Kohanim that shows that over 80 % share a similar DNA -unlike other jews, poiting to a common ancestor (Yes, I know that there is a tribe of black africans who sahre the same….) Also, it is pretty clear that most jews share common DNA and that DNA studies today can identify common ancestors of long ago. so, indeed, bodies are different, even if only very subtly.

as for medical cures, i think that most doctors would acknowledge that different ehtnic groups react differently to different medicines.

As far as a Beth Din, I can’t tell you but I suscribe to the halachic custom to incorporate modern medical knowledge in our psak also…hence, the argument about when is the time of death..etc.

well, volvie asked us to look up the chassam sofer, so i did! And indeed, volvie is correct that the chassam sofer (YD 175) does indeed maintain that the bodies of Jews may be different than the ones from gentiles- because they eat “shekotzim uremossim” (unclean animals)This is based upon the gemoro (found three times in shabbos 86B, Avoidoh zorh 31B and niddah 34B)that points out this difference. Incidentally, the teshuvos is very long and deals with questions of niddah and “vesset” and “maros”.

In itself, i don’t find this assertion remarkable. Are the bodies of pure vegetarians different than from carnivores? I can readily accept that, especially as it relates to cures, when some cures may work on the body and some do not.It is incrotovertible that the bodies of herbivores are different than those of carnivores.

What i fail to see is what al lthis hs to do with Mother’s day??

there is absolutely nothing wrong in identifying one day to honor one’s mother once a year. We celebrate Shavuos as the day Torah was given. We continue to say the same the same all year round but one day is set aside for this special occasion.Same with Mother’s day- even if we have the mitzvah every minute of every day.

As far as the debate on science vs. Kabboloh, I take issue with ‘squeak’, and by implication volvie, saying the yeshiva world believes in the “infallibity of chazal in all matters of knowledge”. Thye never claimed it, the nevi’im never claimed it and this is a newfangled idea that arose in recent times. The only thing that is infallible is hakodosh boruch huh and the torah. everything else and everyone else is fallible. In matters of halocho, you must follow the Chachomim but in matters of knowledge- “man dekar shemei?”

to hello99- see another thread in the coffee room in reference to music in the sefira (lengthy and comprehensive) and you will see that your categorical statement “you may not listen’ is wrong.

to josh31- actually- the majority of ashkenazi jews only start keeping sefira from rosh chodesh iyar (second day) there are many weddings scheduled on rosh chodesh and before.

actually, my impression was that ‘karaoke” refers to a screen that actually gives yo uthe words of a song and the person then tries to sing it to the music (usually a recording). I would think that there is no need for a jewish “karaoke” as the lyrics (words) of jewish are well known, as they are mostly taken from the tefillos. In secular songs, they are composed anew and hence, the singer may not know them.

mybat- see the above comments and sources. as they say in halacha’ “jesh al mi lismoch”. there are plenty of good sources to allow baby wipes- If you read the whole thread, you will see that there was a lively discussion on this but, certainly, many,many Poskim allow it. I see you are in mexico- well, just ask your rabbi!

EDITED