Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The Mar’is Ayin Sugya is very complex and intricate. I’ll just say that many Poskim and big Rabbonim have said that walking into a McDonald’s for a soda or to use the restroom is an issue and leave it at that. Whether the Issur is actually Mar’is Ayin or something similar is not something I really want to write out at the moment.
There are two issues to consider: happiness and productivity. As long as your lack of happiness isn’t causing you, over short-term or long-term, to not be a good Oveid Hashem then you can take your time working on happiness. Not everyone is meant to be bubbly all the time. If that is not the proper way for you to function and work properly then trying to do that will only hurt your productiveness. And of course, if you can identify what is holding you back then you can find a way to deal with it. Personally, I would never identify myself as a “happy” person. I had a rough childhood and recent events have caused me serious troubles. But I can function and be productive without being happy, and maybe some day I’ll figure out how to be happy too. If not being happy hurts how you serve Hashem then you have to try and fix it immediately though.
I am reminded by the line from the Marvelous Middos Machine (The Ahavas Yisroel Song), “Look, there’s the boy with funny-looking knitted Yarmulke. And he’s carrying a Gemara. What would he need a Gemara for?”
A Kabbalist at our school once said that even though you’ll never find a source for the pinky thing, you should do it because if anyone could ask their great-great grandfathers they all did it to.
OVKTD: There are different Minhagim. The Shulchan Aruch is based mainly off the Sefer Chassidim that there are 5 bows in the Amidah, with the final one being before the three steps back. Enough people don’t do the fifth (and haven’t for many years) that there probably is some decent Halachic reationale behind it. But yes, it is proper to bow for that too.
About the bouncing thing. There is no source. I have always figured that it stems from the fact that in theory, when you take your three steps forward it is supposed to be right into the Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh of Kedusha, especially in the communities where the Tzibbor doesn’t say Nekadesh/Nakdishcha.
Minyan Gal: Yes.
Some people are Makpid that when they are married to a Kohen and pregnant not to go into a cemetery.
I think the Rav’s issue in that case was that you would have actual Mamashus of Ma’achalos Assuros in the drink. That seems a little far-fetched to me though. I would also assume, even by a fountain drink, that there are some Mar’is Ayin issues to walking in to the McDonald’s in the first place.
“Hashkafa” as many people see it nowadays shouldn’t exist. It’s all Halacha. Some types of Halacha are just different than others. We should never have a “Haskafa” that overrides Halachic obligations. One the saddest moments for me, when talking with someone about a certain topic, was when he responded, “My Hashkafa doesn’t Pasken like that Mechaber.”
Chein: It’s a Passuk at the beginning of Emor. “Uvas Ish Kohen Ki Seicheil Liznos, Es Aviha He Mechaleles-Ba’eish Tisareif.”
Yeshivahman: I would guess he meant Goy, not guy.
I would never hold a past against someone. That being said, if someone’s past led to things that will affect the rest of their lives-e.g. diseases, drug addictions, etc.-then that is something very serious to take into consideration.
I do not. The only place I saw them was a Yeshivah’s library. They are the really tall black volumes. I am also waiting until I find them to complete my set.
I believe in a T’shuvah about whether it is Muttar to have an Israeli flag in a Shul, Rav Moshe writes that just because the founders of the Zionist movement were Resha’im (his Lashon) that doesn’t make their symbols anything Assur.
Chacham: There are 24 volumes. 23 and 24 have not yet been published in the set, they are only available in individual volumes. He published 18 in his lifetime and then the last 6 came out posthumously. And while the first 6 volumes do not deal so much with medical things, many of the discussions are far too long to be casually learned, so they are mainly only learned by big Poskim or as Mar’eh Mekomos.
Not so much Lehavdil. I’m not talking about Uman in particular, but the Gemara does say to visit your Rebbe every Yom Tov.
Chein: Hello is completely correct in theory. The only thing that matters is the value of the borrowed item. In most places nowadays, the price of something like milk will not fluctuate, at least not within a short period of time. So then the only concern is the amount that you give back.
The Halacha would not be different per se. The willingness of any Rov to be Matir such a serious case would.
Chein: Very, very few people have the authority to argue with R’ Moshe in America. In Eretz Yisroel there is more room to hold like someone else in major cases.
And Chacham: There are 24 volumes of the Tzitz Eliezer and a very high percentage of his T’shuvos are about medical issues. I don’t think it’s so much that he’s not quoted anywhere else as much as it is that he is never not quoted on these topics.
If you know, for an absolute fact, that he still does these things and that if she knew she wouldn’t marry him, then you tell her. But only if you know for an absolute fact that he still does these things. If it’s just a past then it’s a huge Shaila. Most say you don’t say anything, some say you should, ask you Rov.
Hello: Fair enough. I’m still looking for what I thought previously was R’ Ovadia’s opinion. I know I saw it somewhere, and somewhere relevant. It’s been a while since I did this. I was not familiar with his Motzai Shabbos Shiur. And I am sure that if you ask they have just as effective chemical means of abortion as physical. But, in Eretz Yisroel, I will stand by my original statement. I never meant for it in America (and I apologize for never stating that earlier, I just realized that now), where it should be considered murder Mamash like R’ Moshe.
Chein: Some people worry about this. Others assume that people know the laws of Ribbis and that you are estimating anyway and are Mochel any tiny extra that you receive or any tiny extra less that they give back. Some people still are Chosheish about this though. Both are valid approaches. No one in this forum can tell you either way Lema’aseh.
Chein: Your “given” is wrong. As long as the other person has a valid opinion to rely on you can cause them to carry. R’ Shlomo Zalman used to give his famous example that someone who does not hold of the Heter Mechirah can give H”M food to someone who holds like it because they have a valid Posek to rely on. If the Eruv is actually Passul L’Chol Hadei’os then you may still be allowed to lend someone something as long as that thing has a permitted action that does not require carrying (see the Mishnayos in the end of Shevi’is; ask your Rav Lema’aseh).
Hello: Read what he quoted in Anaf 8 from the Beis Yehudah and what he says about Al Y’dei Sam. He gives the situations in which he is Mattir even without Sakanah.
Tomche and Chacham: The Tzitz Eliezer first gave his P’sak that it was okay for Tay-Sachs and I believed published it. In the Igros (Choshen Mishpat 2:69 if I recall correctly) R’ Moshe writes a lengthy Tshuvah about it and ends by saying he went to these lengths because he heard that a Rabbi in Sha’arei Tzedek hospital was Mattir. The Tzitz Eliezer responds and explains using some very strong Leshonos why, in his opinion, Rav Moshe’s argument wasn’t really an argument. There was no further discussion as their wasn’t really a need for it. Both had made their cases quite clear. Because of the nature of this argument, any further response by R’ Moshe would not have added anything to the issue.
Well, I thought I posted what Rav Ovadia says. Either it got deleted or I posted it wrong. In case it got deleted, I’ll just stick with the Mar’eh Makom and let you guys look it up on your own. Yabiya Omer, Even Ha’ezer 4:1, Anafim 5 and 8, especially where he talks about Al Yedei Sam.
HaLeiVi: I think because Shir Hashirim has the most potential of all of Tanach to be grossly misinterpreted. If there was an Issur on all of Tanach and Shir Hashirim is just an example, that would be why. And if the Issur is just on Shir Hashirim, the reason would be that Shir Hashirim needs this “protection” more than the rest of Tanach.
Mesorah: It’s by the Zugos Gemaras in the tenth Perek of Pesachim. And it seems (to me, at least) pretty clear that there are some types of Ayin Harah that affect the world no matter what and some that only affect people who are concerned about them.
About the Chamsa, it is an almost universal Avodah Zarah symbol stemming from many religions. Interestingly enough, another early Kabbalistic symbol is also used in almost every mythology to represent some form of Avodah Zarah. That symbol would be the hexagram, or more commonly known nowadays as the “Jewish Star”/”Star of David”. Both symbols are said to hold Kabbalistic powers. While I am very skeptical of Jews dealing with anything that sounds like Avodah Zarah, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Hakadosh Baruch Hu imbued certain symbols with certain “powers” and that the Ovdei Avodah Zarah discovered this in the same way that Kabbalists did. I would still stay away from anything involving them though.
Health: I heard this firsthand from a relative of mine. It is a community in Eretz Yisroel. She has eye issues and was informed that women are not permitted to wear sunglasses in that community. Her quote was that they are not Tznius because they are “modernish”.
Michal makes sense. It can’t be a common name or too-well-known personality because then there would be nothing to make the name remarkable.
Toi: There is no such thing as Hilchos Tznius. Hilchos Tznius states which parts of the body must be covered and nothing more. Everything else is a Hanhaga which really just depends on your community, event, etc.
WIY: You have a fair point, but having people claim that things like wearing sunglasses and chewing gum are Assur/not Tznius/shows that someone isn’t really frum does just as much, if not more damage, to many people’s sensitivities than a joke would.
I’m not advocating in defense of any of these acts or laws. I was just pointing out a possible reason why a democracy might have been different in regards to the ideas in the sources you posted.
Msseeker: My point (which you basically made for me) was the type of Leitzanus that is Assur is making fun of Torah and Mitzvos.
I did not realize that Popa, but anyone with a basic knowledge of the Constitution would realize that such a law could never stand in this country if it was ever fought.
I personally don’t want to see any more updates. No one should be outside or near a window to see this. It’s just silly and not safe. Don’t risk your life and/or health so that you can tell a few random people in the CR what is going on right now.
Popa: My point was that there probably was no concept of that such an action would be permissible without an express law permitting it. In the US it has always been legal to do this sin, this new law just lets people publicize in a different way.
My real point is that these laws are just semantics games with the word “marriage”. A “civil union” license two weeks ago had the same status that a marriage license would today.
Tomche: I never said a majority. I doubt a majority practiced it even in Dor Hamabul. The point is it is accepted by many people and that is the reason that these laws are being passed-not because the government suddenly decided to endorse the Issur.
WIY: All jokes are Leitzanus. As long as they are made to provide humor, alleviate tension, etc. and not actually mock it shouldn’t be a problem.
It’s not Tznius to talk to people outside of the internet. 🙂
I understand that. But legalizing in those days meant accepting it as legitimate. In this case, the people have already accepted it as legitimate. The law is just acknowledging that. I’m not saying this is in any way better or different, I’m just pointing out that the signing of such a law might nit really make such a difference.
Tomche: It’s nowhere near a scientific fact. I’m sorry that (gasp!) the NYT wrote something as true that wasn’t. It’s an old saying to show the importance of actions that became a blockbuster movie. It’s not true at all.
Tomche: Thank you for the sources.
If I may point out one slight difference, all of the sources are talking about where the form of government is a dictatorship. Thus, the government acknowledging something is in a sense making it okay. In America we have a democracy and these laws are just showing what the public mood is, not setting it.
Itche: Check Orach Chayim 227 (I believe). It gives a list of many things you make an “Oseh Ma’aseh Bereishis” or “Shekocho Ugvuraso Malei Olam” on (according to the Shulchan Aruch the two are interchangeable). Tremendous winds is one of those things.
Tomche: Of course it would. That was my point. That’s (presumably) one of the main reasons no one holds like that Rabbeinu Yonah. And yet there is still more of a Halachic basis in that than in saying it’s Assur to wear sunglasses.
These earthquakes and hurricanes, relative to bad things that happen all over the world all year round, are pretty much nothing.
(I do not see the issue that everyone has with this new law. People who were going to sin in this fashion would have done it anyway. All it does is recognize what a not-so-small segment of the population wants. The issue people should be grappling with here is the growing number of people doing the sin, not the fact that the government decided to recognize them.)
Tomche: I am not saying that the boy in question was in the right or that WIY isn’t allowed to have this stance. All I am saying is that we must realize that there are other valid opinions out there and that the person is question can still be a “Ben Torah” even if he did not act exactly as WIY felt was appropriate.
Tomche: People with different levels of Ruach Hakodesh are not Nevi’im. They can tell us what they think (and their opinions are very, very strong) we should take from this. But no one (maybe not no one, but almost no one) nowadays can give a reason for any of this with any certainty.
I believe there is more of a Halachic incentive to obligate women to wear sunglasses than to forbid it. The Rabbeinu Yonah in Brachos has Shittah that (as far as I’m aware) no one holds by that states that anything that a woman is praised for in Shir Hashirim is an Ervah. So eyes should be an Ervah and any woman who wants to be Choshesh for that would have to wear sunglasses or tinted glasses to prevent her eyes from being seen. (And yes, the bigger the lenses the less likely it is that someone will see her eyes.)
Why would a link make a post more likely to be deleted? How can people back up what they say if they can’t provide sources?
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rules-of-the-ywn-coffee-room-please-read
Hello: I found that Yabia Omer while trying to look this up again. I seem to recall that he has another T’shuvah but I can’t find it. I’ll keep looking though and revive this thread when I do.
Toi: That’s interesting. If he composed it then I am sure he did. I would love to hear the reasoning though.