Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Justsimcha: It’s Assur to steal from a Goy too.
Itche: I agree with your analysis in regards to the buyer of the internet (except for the WEP part, but Obaminator beat me to it). You failed to address anything in regards to the internet provider though.
HaLeiVi: Not everyone holds of Beyada either. There are some Rishonim who hold that Eid Echad Ne’eman B’Issurim does not apply to women for anything. The Mordechai points out that the reason we believe she was Tovel for this is only if we know her to be Shomer Halacha and therefore she has a Chazaka that she wouldn’t be Over on any Issurim (including Lifnei Iver so you can trust the Kashrus).
It is very different lesschumros. And the Shulchan Aruch says you can’t use someone else’s sefer. This should be stealing from both the wifi customer and the internet provider if it’s done regularly.
Thank you scissors. That is exactly what I mean to say. I meant to write “isn’t”. That was a very bad type to have. Thank you for correcting me.
Sammyp: But for people who are accustomed to calling people by their first names it’s an irrelevant distinction. It only adds something significant because it was decided that it would be that way, not because calling someone by their first name has an inherent significance.
I would think it’s common sense that couples nowadays assume that when they get married that the husband will remain faithful to the wife. She could also claim a concern of getting diseases if she stays with the husband because of what he has now exposed himself to.
That the Din based on the Eidus was carried out.
It could still be a Chillul Hashem if you take advantage of it, even if there is no Issur Gezeilah.
Interestingly enough, there are Rishonim who hold that Eid Echad Ne’eman B’issurim does not apply to women. No one anywhere (I think) holds that way though.
AC: Bizman Hazeh an indiscretion on the man’s part should be enough for her to request a divorce because the implied obligation in most marriage nowadays is that she will be the only person he is with. No death penalty unless the woman was married though and there is no obligation to divorce.
Deiye: I don’t understand that story. Just because Tefillah is K’negged the Korbanos that doesn’t mean that someone in a choir who isn’t Jewish would Passul the Tefillah. We don’t insist that Chazzanim be Kohanim.
It could be they are Makpid on the famous line (I believe from a T’shuvah of the Maharil, not positive) that it is Assur for a woman to open a Sefer.
Chanie: It’s an interesting connection. Do you have a source that actually connects the two?
The reason given that they can’t judge, I believe, is because a Mishnah in Niddah says that if someone is Posul for Eidus then they are Posul to be a Dayan.
Who says they can’t? It’s a Machlokes Rishonim.
Chanie: What does that story have to do with women giving testimony? It’s a Gezeiras Hakasuv.
AC: If a wife was actually unfaithful then it is forbidden for the Yisrael to remarry er.
AYC: Once again, there is something we learn from that story. We can assume it actually happened (the Rambam would think we’re crazy, but he probably thinks we’re all crazy anyway). But that Midrash assumes that the moon had the Bechirah to complain, doesn’t it? (Actually, the Rambam probably believed that the celestial spheres had some level of intelligence so he might like this story better than a lot of others.)
Razzle: In that case she would also have the right to request a divorce. It’s a G’zeiras Hakasuv that a man divorces the woman and not vice versa. But yes, there should be no reason for this to be different. A woman is well within her rights to say that her husband commits socially unacceptable actions and that it embarrasses her/causes her problems in the community and that she wants a divorce.
Ma Inyan Nike Eitzel Rosh Hashana?
Shlishi: Of course the Halachos don’t change. But the Halachah does say that the wife doing something socially unacceptable is cause for divorce (because he married her assuming she followed social norms). Socially unacceptable behavior always depends on the place and time.
AYC: Rashi says it because the Pesukim are Meduyak that way. Whether or not it actually happened (Hakadosh Baruch Hu obviously could have made it happen to teach this lesson) the fact remains that rocks (and food) do not have Zechuyos because they do not have actions. They do whatever Hakadosh Baruch Hu created them to do and have no say in the matter.
There is an entirely separate issue in Kabbalistic traditions that sometimes Neshamos come back as inanimate objects because they need a tiny Tikkun and have to be involved in performing some type of Mitzvah. That is still not a Zechus for the inanimate object, but a Tikkun for a Neshama that Hashem decided needs to be involved in something particular before Hashem will judge it.
For the special Din of Eidim Zomemim that you give the intended penalty to the witnesses, they must be made Zomemim after the case has been decided but before the punishment is meted out. If the new witnesses come before the trial is finished based on the original testimony or after the defendant has been punished (execution, money, anything) then the witnesses just have the status of Eidei Sheker, not Eidim Zomemim.
AYC: I highly doubt that Midrash is meant to be taken literally. It teaches an important lesson. And there is no reason for rocks to have Zechuyos because they have no Bechirah, so Schar V’onesh is irrelevant to them.
What Rav Schachter said was that there is an Issur D’Oraisa to divorce your wife without reason against her will. The divorce still works, it’s just Assur to do.
AC: That’s just to give the death penalty.
Shmoel: I do not know where the Ran is. I think it was a Ran. R’ Schachter said it. And apparently people did it so it needed to be strengthened. Does anyone think that reading someone else’s mail wasn’t Assur before Rabbeinu Gershom?
Rav Schachter has said it twice this year, quoting a Ran.
Ask a doctor or nutritionist. If your kid is a celiac it could just be that he doesn’t get enough calories in a day. They’re expensive, but maybe finding gluten-free snacks can help. A good (not unhealthy) brand of potato/vegetable chips (I think Terra chips are gluten free) can go a long way to providing necessary calories and some nutrients too.
Real sources: Halacha knows that there is a Yetzer Harah as well. Sometimes Halacha does something to keep us as far away as possible from it; sometimes Halacha feels that it is one we can defeat on our own and not need so much help. I am not saying that if someone feels they have a personal strong Yetzer Harah that they should ignore that if the technical Halacha will allow something. Everyone has to make sure they avoid their own Aveiros.
Shmoel: Being Megaresh a woman Ba’al Korchah was always Assur. The Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom just strengthened it.
Tums: The Holy Roman Empire became most of what is now Germany. The Gemara there also clearly predicts what would happen when the Empire united.
Fine. Let me at least say that my point has an explanation, even if the mods won’t let any explanations through.
It is actually very clear from history and the details in that Gemara that the Gemara in Megillah (6b at the very bottom if I am not mistaken) is referring to the future Holy Roman Empire.
Limrod (Shoresh of Moredes) means to rebel.
Mytake: He does not. Many of Rabbi Falk’s Halachos are based on the Minhagim in Gateshead and his own logical conclusions (from sources, but not actually sourced) about what Tznius should be.
It’s brought down in Halacha to enter the Shul wearing Tallis and Tefillin. Why it’s not done more is an interesting question.
Aishes Chayil: I don’t think we hold like that. All of these are Mishnayos in the second (third?) to last Perek of Kesubos.
Tums: He permits trimming by a mustache even during those times of year when haircuts are prohibited.
MDD: source?
Oomis: Mikvah is the exception where people cut off both on the same day. It is only a (very strong) Minhag based on Kaballah/Ayin Harah and therefore won’t override actual Halachos. Saying it’s “Assur” is probably the wrong word, actually.
Hello: I would agree with you, but that is the source R’ Schachter gave me (I asked him again). So clearly R’ Elyashiv thought that it was applicable in this case.
Health: Once again, there is a difference between having people who are deserving and having only a select few make it. The point about Yetzias Mitzrayim is that 80% didn’t believe. If you don’t believe, that’s probably a deal-breaker in being Zoche to the Geulah. That doesn’t mean that Judaism believes in any of this “select elite”, that only those who are even more deserving than the rest will be redeemed.
He couldn’t have said it about both because he passed away before WWII.
I thought you’re not supposed to add titles like “Rav” and stuff when Davening for a Choleh.
Shlishi: See the Shulchan Aruch itself and the whole discussion here. It is nowhere near “black and white”. And if you want to go by the most Machmir possible reading of the Mechaber then girls can’t learn Rashi Al Hatorah either. Clearly almost no one actually holds by that.
Granted, but what if her skirt goes a short distance below the knees so that at most the knee itself is showing?
Mdd: There is a huge difference between saying that those who don’t deserve it won’t be Zoche and saying that only a certain percentage and top of the population will be redeemed.
I don’t understand your point. What is the difference between it being a Halachic issue Muttar (which many prominent Poskim hold) or a Kaballah/Minhag issue and Muttar? If you hold it’s Muttar that’s fine. The real difference comes if you hold it’s Assur because then there could be Nafka Minos depending on the source.
Talking is not on the list. Now, any relationship which is relatively close will have serious problems with the others, but having conversations with members of the opposite gender is not one of the things the Shulchan Aruch says are Assur. (And yes, I know Pirkei Avos.)
And the “no translations” was YD 3:91 or 92