shlishi

Isn’t there a halachic problem of a woman wearing a man’s shirts?

yeshivishsocrates is another of popa’s brothers.

Nice shtick.

R’ Kook was respected by the Chazon Ish

The Chazon Ish said that it is Assur to read R. Kook’s Hashkafa works although it is permitted to read his non-Hashkafic works. (Yalkut Daas Torah p.46)

Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik was respected by all the other gedolim of his time.

Rav Aharon Kotler ZTL, who would under no circumstances even walk into YU (even for a funeral), once commented about Rav Soloveitchik, “He is respnsible for the majority of Tumah in America.” Also from the same Rav Aharon, “He destroyed an entire generation of Jews.”

In the recently published “The Rav Thinking Aloud” by Rabbi David Holtzer, Rabbi YB Soloveichik tells – and this is on tape – about his meeting Rav Kook:

Someone asked Rabbi Soloveichik:

You felt the presence of greatness?

R. Soloveichik’s answer:

“I wouldn’t say greatness. Uniqueness. Greatness – if you understand by “greatness” intellectual greatness – no, I was not impressed by his scholastics.”

That entire paragraph (above is just the beginning) was met with such outrage by the religious Zionist community that in the next printing of the book, it was edited out. It’s not to be found.

They excised Rabbi Joseph B Soloveichik’s comments – as told to his Talmidim and recorded on tape (taped with permission, btw).

The “source” is from the Torah (Bereishis 24:65), where Rivka Imanu covered her face when meeting Yitzchok Avinu. It is also brought down in the Gemorah (Ketubos 17b, Rashi ad loc).

Halachicly, the Tur says that the Choson covered the Kallah with an article of clothing. that was the legal chuppah act. The Tosafists write that the covering of the bride’s face with a veil finalized the marriage. The Bach rules that we perform the Badeken and all the other shittos (canopy) of what constitutes the legal marriage in order to cover all halachic possibilities. The bride is veiled, and the overhead canopy is the groom’s covering for the bride.

The veil emphasizes that the groom is not solely interested in the bride’s external beauty, which fades with time; but rather in her inner beauty which she will never lose.

The veiling also symbolizes the bride’s commitment from this moment on to reserve her beauty for her husband’s eyes (tznius).

Yasher Koach, popa. Well put.

Gal is, in fact, the correct female correlation to the male term of guy.

Sam2: Who is the “we” in the “we don’t really agree with him”?

Yasher Koach popa_bar_abba. Very well said and precisely correct.

what is the relationship between an ordinary individual and whoever the Manhig Hador is?

Like a father to a son. Or a Rebbe to a Talmid.

HaLeiVi: The Chasidishe Oilem, just as the Yeshivishe Oilem, have the concept of a Gadol HaDor too. Even if it is done slightly differently.

RSRH: I met Rav Eliashev in late January, and he was answering Shailos as strong as ever. (A few weeks later he went to the hospital for the last time.)

That is the guy who wrote works of apikorus, according to the gedolim. Of course I wouldn’t read him. His untruths (as you even partially conceded) aren’t worth the time of the day, even if they weren’t heretical.

farrock: It’s not studies, but rather one unreleased recent study by a professor in New Zealand (brought up by jbaldy above) that is at odds with all previous studies, and the professor himself saying more data is needed. I addressed the anomaly.

The other “strains” are inauthentic break-offs of Judaism. They have nothing to do with Yiddishkeit, other than in name only (falsely claimed.)

Hats are easily available.

Chareidim do not follow any specific teachings of any specific Rebbi, nor do they believe in any specific values not already in the Torah. Chasidim follow the specific teachings of the Baal Shem Tov and his disciples; Telzers follow the teachings and Minhagim of the Telzer Yeshiva; the Mussar movement was started by Rav Yisroel Salanter – but “Chareidi”? There was no beginning to “Chareidism” except on Har Sinai; no particular person whose teachings they follow except Moshe Rabbeinu, and no particular Minhagim they perform.

So there really is no such thing as a “Chareidi.” Those who people refer to as “Chareidim” have mostly never referred to themselves as such – in America you can go to Yeshiva from Kindergarten through Kollel and you will most probably never hear “we are Chareidi,” and you may even never hear the term used at all.

I do not use the term “Chareidi” because by giving generic, default Judaism a label it conceals the fact that this Judaism is in fact the generic and default.

simcha613, A Jewish State in EY is against Halacha prior to the advent of Moshiach.

Besides, they have too many soldiers even without any Chareidim. Only 60% of Chilonim serve. And most of them even in non-combat. With the Chareidim having been exempt from service since the founding of the State, they managed well without them serving in the Army. And still have too many.

And if, as you say, the Chilonim don’t have respect for the Torah and thus don’t consider the Chareidim’s Torah as a service to the security of the people, then by the same token we can reply that we don’t have respect for the Army to the extent they don’t have respect for the Torah and the security Limud provides the people.

So we will serve our way (learning Torah) and they will serve their way (Army).

Best: Yiddish

Worst: Spanish

Sam: Btw, your application of Kim Li is incorrect, even aside from the fact that all shittos hold yerusha must strictly go according to halacha and not goyish law. Even putting that fact aside, a daughter couldn’t claim part of the estate with Kim Li since she isn’t in possession of the parents estate in the first place. Kim Li would only be applicable in a case where the plaintiff is attempting to force the defendant to pay him money the defendant has, and the defendant claimed Kim Li based upon some shitta that holds he doesn’t have to pay the plaintiff. In this case, the daughter is attempting to demand part of the estate, not keep something she already has.

Opinion of Rav Ovadiah Yosef on yerushah and intestacy

Source

Opinion of the Rambam

Opinion of the Ramban

Other Rishonim, including Ramban, Rashba and Rosh, disagree. They hold that civil laws enacted for good of the general population are recognized by halacha in private transactions. Rama (Ch.M. 68:1) cites this opinion as halacha.

II. Halacha

Rav Ovadiah Yosef, applying strict adherence to the opinion of Shulchan Aruch, writes that the accepted halacha (at least for Sepharadim) is that dina demalchutah dina only applies to tax and other fiscal laws, but not to laws regulating transactions or disputes between private parties. Therefore, halacha does not recognize the legal inheritance rights of a legal heir who is not a yoresh.

The Rashba wrote that uprooting the laws of yerusha by relying on dina demalchutah dina effectively uproots all of the laws of the Torah. If dina demalchutah had priority over the laws of the Torah, he said, then we would have no need for the Mishnah and Talmud; we would simply teach and apply the law of the land in every situation.

III. Litigation in non-Jewish courts

IV. Conclusion

Rav Ovadiah Yosef concludes that it is forbidden for the non-yorshim to appear in secular court to claim a portion of the estate. If the yorshim wish to share the estate with the non-yorshim, they should execute halachic transfers under the supervision of a bet din.

RSRH: That’s not correct. You’re seeming to come here under the impression that Torah Yidden are bad, while I’m assuming they’re good. A Torah abiding Yid will want to follow halacha. And if halacha demands that an estate be divided in accordance with Shulchan Aruch, then Torah Yidden in line for the yerusha will do so. Even if one could get away with more than halachicly entitled by invoking goyishe law and utilizing arkoyos. He won’t do so. He will say halacha is halacha, I am bound to it, and I will follow it. And if some goyish court or administrator awards him in accordance with secular law, which is more than he is entitled to under halacha, he will voluntarily give it to his brother who is entitled to it under halacha, as determined by Beis Din.

It is the case, indeed, that on certain business transactions halacha accepts common local business practices (which may encompass local laws) to govern the transaction, even if it differs from the standard law written in S”A, as it is assumed both parties, in advance, agreed or understood that to govern the transaction. But certainly not dinei momonus between private individuals, that are not a business transaction, but rather standard laws as to whether Reuven owes Shimon compensation for damaging his property, etc. Those, certainly (like yerusha), are governed by Torah Law, even if secular law differs.

Sam2: If Shulchan Aruch says to split it up a certain way (i.e. a bchor gets a double portion) and the laws of the State of Montana say something else (i.e. a bchor doesn’t get a double portion), halacha prevails. Halacha does not say to disregard standard halacha if the drunk gentile legislators of Montana passed a law saying otherwise. Your argument would have meant you could disregard the entire Shulchan Aruch for monetary matters and simply have gone with secular law. Your argument would have, essentially, meant that a b’chor never gets a double portion (and all the other halachas of yerusha are discarded) since goyishe law says differently. That argument is illogical and is incorrect.

Yerusha is governed by halacha, not secular law.

Start looking for new friends.