Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Joseph: Einstein did make a grave and elementary error in his Theory of Relativity when he rejected the existence of faster-than-light quantum entanglement.
DY: Ironically enough, the Simlah Chadashah seems to be slightly misinformed about the issue here. (He also has the misconception that they say Allahu Akbar and not Bismillah, which I find interesting, but that’s a side point.) He thinks it’s better to say it before the Brachah to avoid a Hefsek. But that idea isn’t relevant. The Muslims have held for many centuries (at least back into the 1400s, maybe earlier) that the Brachah that we make before Shechitah counts as praising God’s name while slaughtering. So they think you don’t have to say Bismillah when Shechting the first animal. The problem (for them, not us) is that we hold that one Brachah is Poter many Shechitos. They hold that Bismillah must be said over each and every animal. So the only time the case the Simlah Chadashah is dealing with comes up is when Shechting multiple animals and in between each Shechitah after the first.
Joseph: Did you read your own source that you quoted? He’s against it Lechatchilah and says try to avoid it, but Bedieved it’s Muttar.
And by researching Trump, I haven’t found any employees that had something negative to say about him!
Then you haven’t researched Trump. There are literally thousands of them. A simple Google search will show you that.
Avi K: They don’t say “Allah hu akbar” during slaughtering. They say “Bismallah” (in the name of God).
Joseph: Yes, I’m saying that it’s Muttar to enter a mosque but not Daven there.
Avi K: Read it again. That’s not quite how the Ran says it.
Joseph: I agree. He said no Rishonim hold that it’s A”Z. I said the Ran does. He’s a minority, but he’s still a Rishon.
tiawd: I was replying to Joseph’s comment.
And the Ran holds that it is A”Z.
Joseph: That is incorrect. Horribly so. At the very least, it’s Chukas HaGoy. At worst, it’s a Tefillah in the Makom Avodah Zarah.
Joseph: Eh, you know I don’t believe in those categories. I was guessing what you would say.
Rabbi J. David Bleich might have Teshuvos, I’m not sure.
DY: The ToY”T is not a Rishon.
Also, what’s wrong with using an English (Goyish) phrase to refer to good things? Is every phrase in a non-Hebrew/Yiddish/Judeo-Arabic/Ladino language inherently a bad thing? I see you posting in English, don’t I?
ca: I didn’t. I gave two responses to their two points. I just did it in one post.
147: The Chutz La’aretz system was set up first. You should ask why Eretz Yisrael didn’t find a way to fall back to us faster.
Joseph: Haven’t you called the Tzitz Eliezer MO in the past?
But yeah, there are a few that you would definitely classify as MO. Bnei Banim, BeMareh HaBazak, Melamed Leho’il, R’ Ezriel Hidesheimer, Sridei Eish, Kol Mevaser, Heichal Yitzchak (R’ Herzog), Yaskil Avdi, and probably more. Those are just off the top of my head.
ca: Popa’s case was a Teiku.
DY and PBA: Ad SheYavo Eliyahu is an idiomatic phrase meaning Yemos HaMashiach. Teiku standing for “Tishbi Yavo” is a cute mnemonic not found in the Rishonim, as far as I know. The rule of Lo BaShamayim Hi still applies. Eliyahu HaNavi can’t answer those questions.
DY: Machlokes HaPoskim, I believe.
In case anyone just missed what happened, Avi K asked Joseph for a source about the Beis Din Paskening by what they consider proper, and Joseph responding with the Sugya of Maus Alai. It was a brilliant irrelevant deflection, but an irrelevant deflection nonetheless. Maus Alai is not the only potential claim that a woman can have to ask for a divorce. A Beid Din can Pasken Mitzvah Legaresh for anything as simple as recognizing that the marriage os over with no future hope for reconciliation.
I’m no fan of either either. I did find an ironic statement earlier that Chelsea Clinton, in a campaign, said how horrible it is that her grandmother (or great-grandmother, I forget) did not have access to Planned Parenthood. There is a major logical problem there…
Joseph: I know the case to which you are referring. A different Beis Din had required him to appear before them and he refused. Hence, they Paskened he was a Mesarev. Whether they or the BBD is right is a different discussion.
Joseph: You are wrong. ORA only uses their methods when there has been a Psak that the husband is a Mesarev Lavo LaDin.
Most would assume like Joseph. The Abarbanel prefers democracy, though.
LF: Don’t you love stories about Poskim that are against Shittos that they wrote in their Teshuvos?
LF: No, the Gemara says that, and it’s still only qualified to “Sisrei Arayos”. Arayos that are clear are things that mistakes on wouldn’t be legitimate. I was very clear here with what R’ Schachter said. If she’s attractive, it’s Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor.
LF: Yeah, and the Gemara (see Rashi there) says that that is talking about those types of Arayos (like Bito Mei’Anusaso) that might not have an obvious Issur.
DY: Yeah, it would be a better policy. But I get very nervous while on the spot and she stuck her hand out and then I hesitated then she gave a weird look and I really didn’t know what to do. But I knew that it wasn’t Assur so I decided just to shake her hand.
DY: It actually once came up for me in a business setting. The woman asked why I shook her hand when other Orthodox Jews don’t. I said that some do and some don’t and it often depends on the situation, but many don’t shake at all. (I thought of saying that if there is a large age disparity it’s okay, as she appeared to be at least 40 years older than me, but I thought better of that.)
Joseph: R’ Schachter has said (I doubt it’s in print, but I’m sure it’s on yutorah somewhere) that if she’s not attractive, it’s Muttar (but if she is, it’s Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor).
“Heichan Matzinu that an Isha can make any brocha that requires a minyan to say it,”
See the Meiri and/or Rama in regards to Megillah, iirc.
Ender: The term “Chazal” usually refers to Tannaim and Amoraim. “Chazal” said nothing about eating dairy on Shavuos. It’s a much later Minhag.
Also, that Magen Avraham has always been a Pele to me as it’s clear that we hold that the blood does not turn into milk. (See Niddah 9a)
mw13: The better fact-check is that the country of “Afghan” doesn’t exist.
DaMoshe and rob say it’s obvious, Joseph says it’s all a lie, thread gets closed.
Just wait.
I never understood the whole “they didn’t know how to shecht” thing. The answer is so much simpler. It was Shabbos. They couldn’t Shecht. (It’s also wrong because the Gemara says that animals that died before Mattan Torah were Muttar to eat after, I think.)
BigGolem: You don’t need a shul full of such people. You just need one person in the shul. Ask around. You’ll probably be pleasantly surprised.
Ask around in Shul.
IEHB: I’m guessing that’s what Itche was referring to. I’ve been told it’s quite a sight to behold in YU.
LF: Ah, excellent joke! I get this one. 🙂
nisht: You misread Charlie’s post.
I wouldn’t claim that Upsherrin is Chukas AKU”M. There was a mildly similar pagan ritual Bizman Chazal, but it’s highly unlikely that that’s where the idea came from. The Minhag started among a tiny group in Tzfat in the 1600s. That group did not have contact with any pagans that continued that ritual and it is highly unlikely that they got the idea from what the Gemara says the pagans did. However it started, it very likely isn’t Chukas AKU”M.
We need a conservative to run as an independent. That person could actually win. I really don’t get why neither Kasich nor Romney will do it. Romney would have a real shot at this election. I don’t get why he keeps on refusing it.
charlie: It’s clear in the Poskim that there isn’t a difference there. But what’s your point? We can establish a Minhag either by a)a major Talmid Chacham promoting it and the people following, or b)the people proposing/doing something and a major Talmid Chacham approving. You seem to be trying to say something very different.
apy: I have been told by Rabbonim that we don’t hold like that Aruch HaShulchan because we hold those are Birchos HaShevach B’alma, not Tefillos for the Chassan V’Kallah.
DY: I have heard the Ta’ana advanced, at least as a possibility (though not a definite) that now that our women are much more learned and literate it is not as much of an issue of a Zilzul.
charlie:
Which Talmid Chacham instituted Hallel on Rosh Chodesh?
Unclear, but Rava accepted it. So it had the Haskama of Chazal.
Which Talmid Chacham instituted Simchat Torah for the second day of Shemini Atzeret in galut?
Again, this has the Haskama from Geonim and Rishonim. Just because we can’t name the individual who came up with that doesn’t change it.
Which Talmid Chacham instituted not eating kitniyot on Pesach?
Also from the Geonim or early Rishonim.
Which Talmid Chacham added corn (maize) to the minhag of not eating kitniyot?
Again unclear, but it was accepted by the Rama, so it has his stamp of approval.
Which Talmid Chacham instituted men not wearing a talit gadol prior to marriage?
This also has a stamp of approval from Talmidei Chachamim (albeit later ones).
lesschumras: You bring up an excellent point. The state of New York defines a MTF trans man as a woman. It would be illegal discrimination (and a hate crime) to keep such a person out. So the Chassidish swimming hours will probably be gone soon anyway.
ay (and Joseph): I think you missed GAW’s point, because I’m guessing that he agrees with everything you said. I agree with everything you said. He’s just pointing out (and I agree), that if an issue never came up, it cannot be called a Minhag. We can’t call something a Minhag to/not to act in a certain way unless we can assume that a Talmid Chacham, somewhere, approved of it. That’s why it isn’t a breach of Mesorah to use indoor plumbing, or to drive a car. Sure, we never drove cars for 3000 years. But that wasn’t Al Pi Mesorah. It was Al Pi circumstance. So it might be a fair Taana to claim that women not saying Sheva Brachos is just Al Pi circumstance (women couldn’t read for most of our history) and there was minimal interest to until now, so maybe it’s fair to say that the Shaila was never asked and a Minhag was never established. I’m currently leaning no (meaning that it was feasible for a long time so we can say that the proper practice is not to), but I hear GAW’s point and it is far from an attack on our Mesorah.
There is nothing wrong with either the Chassan or the Kallah making the Brachah (as far as the Brachos being about themselves; I’m not convinced by GAW yet). They are not to or about these individuals. They are third-person Brachos about the Simcha of a wedding. We’re blessing Hashem, not the couple. The couple can bless Hashem as much as the rest of us.
GAW: See Pitchei Teshuvah Even HaEzer 62:2, IIRC.
LF: Don’t take anything you write seriously? So you actually don’t believe in Daas Torah?
The question quoted in the OP makes an assumption. Ads don’t show what people do. Ads show what’s worth it for the advertiser. Publications publish ads that they are paid for. Maybe ads are cheap in these publications and the luxury items offer the best deal. It’s worth it for everybody. The advertisers and magazines each make money, and everyone is happy.
Having enough people buy an item to offset the cost of advertising doesn’t mean that it’s a significant percentage of the population that are interested in these things.
Joseph: Actually, we probably do. Conversos were discriminated against and were almost always only able to marry other conversos. There are surnames that, as little as 50 years ago, we could be almost sure that they were Jewish.
Joseph: I have also been saying that (more or less) since Day 1. There are only two labels necessary: A Jew who has Ne’emanus/(maybe also can be counted for a Minyan), and one who doesn’t.
Joseph: Yes, but why does that matter? Someone calling themselves “MO” has no bearing on other “MO” people. Just like me calling myself Chinese has no bearing on actual Chinese people.