Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Once again Hacham, how do you know how long ago he said it? He may have said it as many as 40 years ago.
I also take great exception to your statement that more and more of K’lal Yisroel are donning a black hat. If it’s true, I would think that it only is true because the Chareidi community in Eretz Yisroel (not even as much in America) has such a high birth rate. I think it’s more accurate to say that people who don’t wear hats aren’t counted as part of the frum section of K’lal Yisroel by many people anymore. (I’m not accusing you or anyone in particular of this; I just feel that it’s a mindset that has grown tremendously over the past 10 years even.)
Old Man: Actually, none of the five grains are Muskam to everyone. There are opinions that Chitah is a slightly different strand of most wheat that we buy. (When i researched this I wrote a “Purim Torah” article about how there is nothing on Earth you can eat because everything is a Safek B’racha in one way or another.) The generally accepted five grains are wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt. There are Ta’anas and arguments about each of them but you can’t go wrong holding by those five.
YIC: When did he say that though? He clearly didn’t mean for that to apply forever or that that’s always been the uniform of Ovdei Hashem (yes, I did once meet someone who argued vociferously that Moshe Rabbeinu wore a hat and jacket on Har Sinai). How do you know that he would still say that today?
Since it was mentioned, what is the deal with sunglasses? I have an older female relative who has serious eye issues and needs to wear sunglasses. She was walking to a store in a certain community (I won’t say where) where she was not-so-politely informed that it was not acceptable to wear sunglasses in that community as it isn’t Tznius. Can someone explain the whole idea there? I assume they wouldn’t also ask Rav Ovadiah to remove his sunglasses on the street, would they?
On the Bracha: See Orach Chayim 227:1 where the Shulchan Aruch states that either “Oseh Ma’aseh B’reishis” or “Shekocho Ugvuraso Malei Olam” is acceptable. Based on the Mishnah B’rurah’s logic in S”K 5 there (by thunder and lightning) I would personally say “Shekocho” on an earthquake but either one is completely acceptable.
I’ll look it up later, but I would think logically that an earthquake is Shekocho Ugvuraso Malei Olam. And you have to say it within Toch K’dei Dibor (1.5-4 seconds) of when you stop feeling the earthquake.
It really depends on the type of Shaila. If it’s something that requires a real Halachic analysis and Shikkul Hada’as and there are equally valid opinions on both sides, then you must stick with the P’sak or your Rebbe Muvhak or the Rav you pick. If the Rebbe/Posek/Rav answers the Shaila by saying “The Mishnah Berurah says X” and he misquoted the Mishnah Berurah then you follow what the MB actually says and not what the Rav “Paskened”.
Techncially, the Halacha requires that he divorce his wife in such a case. If it occurred before marriage then he is allowed to marry her if the attacker was a Kosher Jew (i.e. not a Goy, Mamzer, etc.). Some Poskim try to find Heterim to allow the Kohein to stay with his wife, for example if there were no actual Kosher Eidim. It does happen that a Kohein, unfortunately, has to divorce his wife in some cases like this.
You obviously don’t know the husband from her perspective. No one can judge either one without knowing what happens or happened behind closed doors.
The definition of a Shoteh does not change over time but the indicators definitely can. A Shoteh is not someone who does foolish or stupid things. It is someone who is mentally incapable of understanding or functioning around people. A case-by-case basis would probably require a Rabbi ruling on the advice of a psychologist.
A Cheireish that can neither hear nor speak in today’s day and age has been a tremendous argument between the Poskim since the mid-1800s. There are valid arguments and opinions on both sides.
There is a Minchas Chinuch that asks why you aren’t allowed to desert the army for Pikuach Nefesh (and why one is obligated to join in the first place). He says that some Mitzvos that inherently require putting oneself in danger cannot be avoided due to Pikuach Nefesh.
A Jewish monarch that was appointed Al Pi Navi would need another Navi to get rid of. I’m trying to think of a source but I am not sure how one would Halachically get rid of a Jewish, let alone non-Jewish, leader that was elected or self-appointed.
Are you sure you are correct Hacham? If I recall correctly, I once saw a letter by the Maharshal complaining that the average person walks outside without their head covered. Can you prove/do you have a source that Jews always did this? I also seem to recall a Gemara in Kiddushin that Bachurim (before they were married) would not wear an (additional) covering on their heads.
No Golden Mom. I thought I was clearer about that. I’m sorry. It’s not determined by if you can see it but if it is visible. The idea behind bug lights is that most of us do not have perfect vision and so we can’t determine ourselves what is visible to the naked eye. ‘Visible to the naked eye” means by a normal person (presumably 20/20 vision) who is actually looking, in normal daylight. If it could exist that there was a bug that is only visible through a bug light but would be too small for any person to see without one then such a bug would be Muttar. A light just helps us see what we can see anyway, it doesn’t make smaller things look bigger.
About the water in certain areas of New York: first of all, not “all the Rabbonim” said you need a filter. There are many notable, valid opinions to be Meikel. Those bugs are visible without a microscope (I have seen them myself) they just are very hard to see, especially when they are dead and not moving. We once took a trip to a reservoir; you can really see them swimming around in there. They are very light and almost see-through, but they are visible (to me, at least) if you look closely enough, especially against a black background.
I am positive. Halacha does not recognize anything not visible to the human eye. A friend told me his Rebbe in a Yeshiva once told his Talmidim he believes it’s Assur to inhale through one’s mouth because he would breathe in microbes. That is laughable, ridiculous, and already mentioned by the earlier Poskim (turn of the 20th century) as being untrue.
But not being seen is not the same as not being visible. I believe the strawberry issue is that they are inside the strawberry, not that they are too small to see. If something would normally be visible or would be visible in different circumstances but just blends into its surroundings then it is still Assur to eat. The bug is visible so it has Halachic signifigance (i.e. is Assur to eat), it’s just not in a place where it’s visible. Bugs that are always too small to see with the naked eye have the same Halachic status as microbes-i.e. it’s as if they don’t exist.
@Health: I actually once had to say food was Assur because someone used that Heter. It was very sad because no one listened to me and a lot of people ate Bishul Akkum. The lights were fluorescent. And people need to be very careful because the Heter of doing a tiny bit of adding heat is not accepted by most Sephardim.
It might be gross, but if the insects are only visible (or according to some identifiable as bugs) with a magnifying glass and not to the naked eye then there is nothing wrong with eating them. The Halacha does not recognize anything not visible to the naked eye.
Atifah requires covering part of the face also. A tallis works for that if you want to be Makpid on that. A hat doesn’t really.
I disagree Old Man. If Yoshon had always been readily available, then maybe people would never have eaten Chodosh in Chutz La’aretz. But since we can’t accept that all of K’lal Yisroel was being Over an Issur D’Oraisa, we have to go by our “Lomdishe pyrotechnics”. To start eating only Yoshon now is to say that those Jews were Over this Lav for a thousand years. That is just untenable. So whether we go by the Bach’s, the Rama’s, or one of the later Poskim’s reasons, we have to assume that one of them is correct.
How did I become the person who advocates wearing hats in this thread? All I was doing was trying to point out what the Mishnah B’rurah actually says because so many people misunderstand/are misinformed about it. I clearly pointed out that it’s societal. If you are in a society that requires wearing a hat, it is a lack of Kavod Hatfila to not wear a hat to Daven. Everywhere else it’s fine to not wear a hat. I wore a hat when I spent Shabboses in Me’ah She’arim. The rest of the time I usually don’t.
I once knew a boy who was being Chozer Bitshuvah. He found out that his family roots are in Chassidism. So he began walking a mile to Shul in a Bekeshe every Shabbos. Two Lakewook guys once visited the community and told him that maybe he shouldn’t wear it because it makes him stand out too much. They had a point. There is a concept of not dressing in a way that makes you stand out. Then again, in this small, out-of-town Shul, the two guests from Lakewood were the only others (other than the Chassidish kid) wearing hats.
@Cinderella: If bugs aren’t visible to the naked eye then they have no Halachic status whatsoever and are perfectly fine to eat. I think you may have meant to say that they are camouflaged/blend into the vegetables.
@Moshe Kohn I was not agreeing with Abe Cohen’s post at all. The Mishnah B’rurah makes no mention of wearing an ‘additional’ hat for Davening or Bentsching. One head covering is enough. Of course you can Daven or Bentch without a hat, unless you’re in a place like B’nei Brak where the lack of a hat would be considered disrespectful. A lot of people misquote/make up these Mishnah B’rurahs and it really bothers me. He never says you need a double head covering and his statement about wearing a hat for Davening is very clearly only because of the fact that all people always wore hats outside.
@Moshe Kohn: The Mishnah B’Rurah (183:11) by Bentsching is quite interesting actually. But he does cite that it is the Minhag to wear an actual hat of some type for Bentsching. That has nothing to do with Shmoneh Esrei though and is a special Din by a Kos Shel B’racha. In fact, to actually follow the Magen Avraham who the M”B quotes, one would have to wear their hat for Kiddush, Havdalah, a Bris, a wedding, the 4 Kosos at the Seder etc. because they are all Kosos Shel Brachah.
@Derech Hamelech: At what other point in history did respectable society worldwide not wear one of those.
Moshe Kohn: The Mishnah B’Rurah doesn’t say to have a double head covering. What he actually quotes (91:6) is a Zohar that one should keep both his head and eyes covered. The most practical and best way to this (which he explicitly says) is with a Tallis. Obviously it will be very hard to put a Tallis over your head and eyes with a hat on.
Optimus: When did a Kippah and Tzitzis stop being enough?
Tomche: The main Heter (which probably has issues for Sephardim because the Mechaber is against it, but I will admit to being unfamiliar with contemporary Sephardi Poskim and custom on the issue) is that the Rama holds that Pas Palter (baked by a baker for money) is Muttar. This is what many Ashkenazim and almost all Hechsherim without the “Pas Yisroel” label go by. The idea is that there is less of a feeling of closeness with a non-Jew who baked bread for profit rather than for you personally.
I would assume they have. There is a Gemara in Chullin (not positive on the Daf) that says that the bread of someone who eats Chometz on Pesach right after Pesach is not Chometz because they trade (bread according to Rashi, makes the most sense but has an issue with R’ Yehudah’s opinion elsewhere) with non-Jews right after Pesach. The Gemara says it’s Muttar for K’sheirim to eat, though I guess it wouldn’t be impossible to read the Gemara just from a D’Oraisa-Chomtetz standpoint. The word Muttar is a little weird though. I am not familiar if this Gemara is brought as a proof for the Pas Yisroel Sugyos or not.
One thing to add Moderator 42: The Halachah very clearly is that the Heter to eat Pas Paltir does not apply during the Aseres Y’mei Teshivah. During those days only things with a “Pas Yisroel” label should be eaten by everyone.
What the Mishnah B’Rurah actually says (91:12) is “And nowadays one must wear a hat while he Davens like the way he walks in the street, and not with the small hat that is worn under the hat because it is not nnormal (proper) to stand like that in front of important people.”
He explicitly states (twice) that this necessity to wear a hat is only time-based and because that’s how it was considered proper to present oneself.
I said a lot. Of course there are exhibits with actual mummies lying on the floor. I just meant that many of the exhibits may not be a problem anyway.
Yes, Pas Akum and Bishul Askum are Assur. The issues are what exactly defines Pas Akkum and Bishul Akkum. There are several Machlokesim between the Mechaber and Rama (and later Poskim) about details of each. “Pas Yisroel” labels are a slight misnomer. They probably should say “Pas Yisroel lechumra”. Everyone agrees that Pas Akkum is Assur. The issue is exactly how it’s determined. Ask your Rabbi/Posek for specific Shailos. (I would give my opinion on any specific Shailos asked here, but I in no way mean for anything to be taken Lema’aseh. I wouldn’t say it unless I thought I was right but that doesn’t mean i have any actual authority.)
@HIE: I always wondered about that famous P’sak (it’s published) and had someone ask him for me. I was told that was only meant to apply in areas where it is considered improper to be without a hat (e.g. B’nei Brak where R’ Chaim Kanievsky lives).
I think the question is why are black hats still the uniform of “B’nei Torah”. (I put those words in quotes not to claim that those that wear black hats aren’t B’nei Torah but to avoid the implcation that anyone who doesn’t wear a black hat is not a Ben Torah.) They were the uniform of B’nei Torah years ago because B’nei Torah always dressed respectably and that is what respectable people wore 100-50 years ago. The question is why is it the uniform of “B’nei Torah” nowadays when it is no longer how they average respectable person dresses.
I wonder about a lot of mummy exhibits anyway. My knowledge of Taharos is nowhere near enough to say this with any degree of certainty, but I feel like a lot of exhibits are fine anyway. A lot of them have the mummies in sarcophagi or glass with a cubic Tefach between the mummies and the sarcophagus or glass. Therefore that should be an Ohel by itself and contain the Tum’ah. I never asked anyone about this so i could be completely wrong. If I am please point it out to me. Obviously each exhibit would have to be thoroughly researched but I feel like some would be okay to enter (not to mention entering anywhere in the museum).
Hello: The “Many valid Poskim” just include Rebbeim and Rabbis that I have spoken to in Eretz Yisrael. I think this issue more than any other highlights the difference in the weight given to R’ Moshe’s opinions in America and Eretz Yisrael.
I remember being shocked by how lenient Rav Ovadiah was on abortion when I first looked it up (someone was wondering on Jewish Halachic positions on abortion). He says the first 40 days you can abort for any reason and until 7 months (might have been three; I seem to recall him quoting a random Sephardic SHU”T about the 7 months) it can be done to avoid the mother “Tza’ar Gadol”. I looked this up in high school and my notes are on an old note card that I am currently searching for. If I can’t find the card I will try to find the exact Teshuvah for you. It was in the Yabia Omer though.
In the older Seforim it was used when referencing a Kabbalistic concept that the author did not wish to explicitly state. Now people use it to end an article/piece when they want to sound fancy.
Sorry Health, I did read the whole thread. My post was supposed to be addressed to Hello99. I was more worried about the content of my post than the first word. Oops.
Hello99, would you care to address any of my claims?
He wasn’t. Neither of them actually died on May 1st. However, the World was informed of both of their deaths on May 1st.
My apologies for the typo late at night. I meant after meat.
I once didn’t sit the entire Yom Kippur. Got huge cramps in my legs as soon as I got home. I broke my fast that year on a cup of pickle juice (does wonders for cramps).
There are 6 Issurim (by my count) that involve not eating/drinking certain foods. Most are to avoid marrying Goyim; some are for Kashrus.
Stam Yeinam is the most strict. We treat it as mostly Assur B’Hanah because there is an added worry that maybe the Goy was Menasech it for Avodah Zarah.
Pas and Bishul Akkum are to avoid intermarriage. There are several Kulos for each of these in cases where their is not an increased level of familiarity (e.g. the food is not fancy or the bread was made by a baker to sell).
For Chalav and Gevinas Akkum, we are worried about the non-Jew mixing something Treif in. By milk it is that there is actual Treif milk mixed in; by cheese it is the enzymes to cause the cheese to form.
There is a sixth Issur of using oil produced by a non-Jew which the late Tannaim were Mattir because they saw that the majority of the population could not handle it.
Chodosh is an entirely separate Issur. Pashut P’shat is that it is an Issur D’Oraisa, even in Chutz L’Aretz. There are many complicated (and some not-so-complicated) reasons given for the Heter. Even though Pashut P’shat would be that it is Assur Mi’d’oraisa anywhere, Chalilah on anyone to say that the vast majority of Ashkenazi Jews have been violating an Issur D’Oraisa for the past 1000 years.
Tomche, supposedly Rav Willig says that even the OU-D Oreos are just dairy equipment and can be eaten after milk. That is what is quoted in his name.
Please tell me this is a joke. There is no source anywhere for not eating food owned by a non-Jewish brand.
While the Rambam holds that non-Jews are not Mitamei B’Ohel, Tosafos (Bava Metzia 114b at the top I believe; it might be 113b) says that he hold like the Chachamim over Reb Shimon. The Shulchan Aruch Paskens like Tosafos but makes it sound a little like a Chumra. (Rav Schachter is fond of quoting humorously the Macklokes between the Beis Yosef and Bach ere. The Beis Yosef says we can hold like the Rambam, especially because the Zohar agrees with him; the Bach responds that the Zohar is just R’ Shimon in the Gemara L’Shitaso. Jsut because he is quoted in 2 Seforim doesn’t give his opinion double weight.)
The accepted position of most is to be Machmir; though there are (rare) exceptions and Kullos given. As an interesting aside, the Avnei Neizer (I believe, not positive; might have my SHUTIM mied up) quotes a Ramban (Parshas Pinchas) that Kivrei Tzadikim are not Mitamei and therefore Kohanim should be allowed in the Ma’aras Hamachpeilah. One of answers given (I apologize, I do not recall by whom) is that Esav’s head is in the cave too.
Health, Rav Waldenberg is certainly not a Da’as Yachid. Rav Ovadiah agrees with him; and since his P’sak is almost universally accepted by Sephardim you were remiss in not mentioning that part. (In fact, Rav Ovadiah’s opinion is even more lenient than Rav Waldenberg.) That aside, Rav Moshe is considered in the minority of major Poskim for this issue because of the fact that Rav Waldenberg is (and probably will be for a long time) the preeminent expert on Halachic medicine and the way Rav moshe dealt with some of the Rishonim here. Rav Moshe is certainly entitled to interpret Rishonim however he wishes and to dismiss Acharonim if he disagrees with their opinions. However, many Poskim felt that Rav Waldenberg made the stronger claim. The P’sak in most places in America accords with Rav Moshe. However, there are certainly many valid Poskim who agree with Rav Waldenberg and Chalilah (if you are a Posek) to force someone to have to raise an impaired child who they are not capable of raising without informing them of the very strong and accepted dissenting opinion.
It’s good advice; you have too many other things to worry about. There is no Halachic imperative or “Inyan” though.
There is a famous story about the Bach who, when the Taz was about to marry the Bach’s daughter, told the Taz that the Mitzvah of Kaveid es Avicha V’es Imecha applies to a father-in-law… and a mother-in-law.
I once asked my Rov why he isn’t Makpid on Cholov Yisroel. He (a Talmid of Rav Moshe) answered that Rav Moshe went out of his way to publish several T’shuvos that Cholov Stam in America is Muttar. And B’Sha’as Had’chak is only mentioned in the dubios (at best) eigth Chelek. And Bed-Stuy, haven’t you read any introduction to any SHU”T Sefer that always warns that each Teshuva is only meant for that specific case and that one must be incrdibly careful when changing the context because that always can change the P’sak?
The source for the Rosh will have to wait about a week until i get back to my notebook. I have no response to your probability thing. I don’t think it’s a probability there. I think we can say, based on statistical percentages worldwide, that Anan Sahadi that there is more than 1.6% Treifos in any large batch of cows. Agree to disagree there I guess. And I am not talking about having Kulos. I am just talking about not having Chumros which in other situations we wouldn’t take (e.g. to be Yotzei one Rishon or to worry about a minority opinion that has already been dismissed by the Poskim, etc.).
I have only ever met one person who claims to be Yeshivish lite. Basically, he is very Yeshivish in Hashkafah but doesn’t mind chilling by watching TV and sports and stuff.
Pashuteh Yid. I am familiar with that Rama (I believe the Siman is 21) where after the Shulchan Aruch gives the details of Issurei Kirvah the Rama adds on his own ideas and then is Melamed Zechus by saying at the end “Hakol Lesheim Shamayim”. But that is the point. If it Lesheim Shamayim then there is no Hana’ah and therefore no Issur. If there is physical Hana’ah then it is an Issur D’Oraisa of Kiruv Basar B’Derech Chibah (Lo Sikr’vu).
AOM, you put a dash in the middle of Hashem? I have never seen that before. Why?
There are several more than “Seven Noahide Laws”. It’s a misconception and a nice phrase. There are seven main ones that go together. However, there are still other things that are forbidden for non-Jews to do. And that S’vara doesn’t make sense at all.
Sorry Yitay. You have to show me someone who does say that it’s only Assur if it’s Ra’oy L’Biah. Otherwise, Mistimas Divrei Haposkim, we will assume that the Issur D’Orasisa applies to what the Poskim say it applies to-any Kirvas Basar that has physical Hana’ah.