shuali

1) Why does YI have different halachos than any other shomer Torah? I would think the question would be did anyone not say? Why did everyone say? Why bring in YI?
2) Do we know if this good or bad?
3) The reason we don’t say tachanun on ,say, Yom Tov, is because they are yimei din. Tachanun is mi’orrer din, so on days of din we don’t add din

@The Fake Maven –
“Therefore all your points would seem irrelevant, since all you are proving is just that it is ‘part’ not the ‘full’ thing; but you admit to it being ‘part’ of אלוקות ממש, (unlike your original objection).”
Clearly you misunderstood my original objections.

“As to the Avos, see the Shefa Tal there where he draws a parallel between every Jew. But furthermore we are talking about Tzaddikim.”
Dovid HaMelech teaches, ועמך כולם צדיקים. Toras CHaBa”D aside, there are, according to this posuk and to all hashgafos (CHaGa”S, etc.) there are far more than one tzadik in every generation, community, beis medrash o shul / Beis Medrash.

@The Fake Maven – I am quite certain the language is חלקא-לוק ממעל not ממש.

@RebbetzinGoldenpickanicerscreenname – Excellent posts. Good points. Great observations. Wonderful and clear presentation. Thank you.

I believe if you will look in Likutei Halachos to Makos, third perek, you will find the information as I presented it. I am unfamiliar with Tiferes Adam and likewise unfamiliar with the focus of the sefer or the nuances and context of language used.

As with any discussion, and especially one pertaining to halachah, clear definition of terms is required. This discussion adds the need for accurate and consistent translation of terms as well.
There is NO issur giluach on ones head. Peyos (edges/corners of ones head) may not be rounded even with a machine/trimmer which cuts in the manner of a scissors.

There IS an issur giluach on ones face (this week’s sedra, I believe). The Gemora learns out that this prohibition is only when done derech hashchasah (not a scissors).

The issue of shavers has always been (the Chofetz Chaim discusses this in his Likutei HALACHOS on Maseches Makos) are these machines acting as scissors or as razors.

How and when the definition of “beged ishah” changes requires a posek.

Inyonei kabbolah and midos chasidus cannot be ignored or dismissed as we learned last week Kedoshim Tihiyu is a mitzvah min haTorah.

Rav Chaim, as I posted earlier, does NOT prohibit shaving. He does paskin, I believe, that at least some of our “shavers” are razors al pi halachah and therefore prohibited min haTorah. He may also be saying we should be makpid on how we “dress (i.e. like traditional Jews who always had beards). He is certainly entitled to that opinion, and I would value it as it is certainly coming from having learned a few more blatt Gemora and from chazering Shulchan Aruch a few more times than we have.

No, he is NOT paskenning for the entire world, but we CAN’T either. Even for ourselves, it is advisable to ask for oneself.

@Joseph – According to the Gemora, the Rishonim, and Achronim, the corners/edges of the head end where two of the corners/edges of the beard begin (i.e. where the skull and upper jaw meet the lower jaw know as the lechi ha’elyon and lechi ha’tachton respectively. The Kaf HaChaim quotes a Zohar that the peyos should be moved away from the ear during tefilos. I heard that Rav Chaim said this is not found in our Zohar.

I have not had the chance to carefully go through the four volumes of Meir Einei Yisroel which I own for the family record mentioned above, but I did notice the following. On the Chofetz Chaim’s letterhead on the lashon ha’kodesh side, it is printed ישראל מאיר הכהן, while on the “English” side it says Yisroel Meir Kagen. Clearly Kagen is not his last name as, if it were, he would have had the other side say either כהן or הכהן כהן. Kagen is merely a translation of הכהן (again with the “g” being the closest thing to a Russian “h”. I will continue to look for the document, nonetheless.

@Neville Chaim Berlin – “I think the OP was talking about the families you see walking around where the father has no peyes yet the children do. It’s pretty common and perplexing.”

Not completely perplexing. Keep in mind the following. In the late 40’s and continuing through the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s parents often not only did not leave (longer, behind the ears) peyos on their sons, but often did not allow them outside to play or walk around the street with a Yarmulke, choosing a baseball cap or similar hat. As our communities grew in size and neighborhoods began developing, old customs returned with more comfort and ease. A case in point. . .
A very chashuveh talmid chocham, now a R”M in a major Brooklyn Yeshiva, who did not have “litvisheh” peyos at the time, put them on his three sons. When asked about this, he answered, that he simply left his son’s peyos, or better put did not remove them. That is a passive act. To remove them would have required he take a positive action (i.e. cutting them off). To grow them on himself is a conscious decision and requires an action, so to speak.

@Phil – Sure. I will look for it, bli neder, and post.

@laskern – I don’t believe anyone is disputing that here (although which bone and if with mouth open or closed is a dispute amongst the poskim). What was being discussed is if the “style” of the modern day Yeshivah bochur is indeed a style or an old minhag to have longer more noticeable peyos for either one of the reasons mentioned above. Also being discussed was the reason for the old minhag, even among Uekesheh Yidden, for being lost.

@Neville Chaim Berlin – Very interesting. Could you please post where in the Mishnah Berurah (which is exclusively on Orach Chaim) where he paskins on the issues of peyos or long coats?

@haskafah – Again, the minhag (original and very wide spread minhag) in Lita (actually almost throughout Europe) was to gave peyos (either behind or in front of the ears). This is clear from pictures and paintings of Gedolim such as Rav Eliyahu Kramer (The Vilna Gaon) , Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (The NeTZi”V), Rav Shimshon (ben) Refoel Hirsch, Rav Moshe, Rav Yaakov, Rav Aharon, the Soloveitchik family, Rav Kook, Rav Shach, and many more. They also had beards and wore long costs. The mingag changed when shiduchim – and therefore the continuity of Klal Yisroel – were threatened. Ergo, your father’s kabbolah from the Slabodka talmid is accurate albeit limitedly so, as it was not always the case. The old minhag has had a rebirth of sorts, but it is not new. That is indisputable.

@David Y – See the Sefer HaChinuch and Minchas Chinuch on this subject. While you are correct that there is a minimum requirement, the source for growing the peyos “into the beard” (i.e. long enough to reach the pe’as ha zakein) is found in more ancient texts. Reb Avrohom ben HaRambam discusses the Teimonie “simonim” with his father. The AriZal discusses longer peyos. And as mentioned before, many “Litvish Roshei Yeshivah and poskim had such peyos. Some I did not mention; Rav Shach and Rav Elyashiv.

@haskafah – With all due respect, you should perhaps look at the list I presented. I did not mention any from the era or yeshivos you mention and claim they had peyos. Although I could mention Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, Rav A. Y. HaKohein Kook, Rav M. M. Epstein, and Rav Aharon Cohen (the former two being from Slabodka/Chevron).

I am certain that you are aware that the heads of many (non-chasidish) Yeshivos made a decision in the years between the two world wars to bring the dress code of their bochrim more in line with the aristocracy of the times. This was simply because more and more women (prior to the acceptance and success of Sarah Schnirer) had little interest in marrying benei Yeshivah. Ergo, the three-piece grey suits, the fancy fedoras, pocket watches, pinc-nez (sp.?) glasses, and no beards and close-to-the-skin peyos.

My point is only that this “style” is better described as REnewed rather than simply new.

All this is a matter of historical record. The fact the Mir, Telz, and Slobodka adopted a hora’ah sha’ah style, does not in the slightest cause the pictoral history mentioned in my original post to disappear.

Those among us who are 55 and older, probably remember that every clothing store had a men’s and women’s hat department. Frum or not, Jewish or not, there was a sense of honor and modesty that existed. Jackets and ties were always worn on plane trips. Many restaurants would not seat you without them.
Unfortunately we have lost a large percentage of that sense of kovod.
The Mishnah Berurah brings that the berachah of oteir Yisroel b’sifara is going on the hats we wear.

@modernmisnaged – “This question has bothered me for YEARS, which is why I have scoured Tanach, Shas, Rambam, Tur, Beis Yosef, Rema, G’ra, Chaye Adam, Aruch Hashulchan, Mishna Berurah, and Igros Moshe, and I have come up with NOTHING!”
Of course not. Did you find “don’t double park,” or “thou shall not cross against the light?” Did you find Hachnosas Orchim or bikur cholim (anywhere but a breisa and in Sefer Ahavas Chesed? Vatranus (except in the mussar seforim)? To be an anav?
1) No mitzvos found explicitly in the Torah or the seforim of the monei ha’mitzvos, count midos as Torah obligations. Rav Chaim Vital explained why.
2) Productivity and profits for IBM plummeted after they dropped their white shirt, dark suit, striped tie dress code.
3) An experiment in NY schools requiring uniforms saw grades and good conduct increase.
4) The uniform of the Jew has always been different than that of the non-Jewish society in which they lived. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by decree (e.g. the yellow star, “crown” of fox tails, etc.). I prefer the former.
5) In this day and age where we have been exposed to and influenced by the be an individual, a non-conformist, anything which smells like forced compliance is avi avos ha’tumah. Unfortunately for those individuals, the fact is the true strength of the individual is directly related to his /her connection to a group.

@mentch1 – I’m sorry you misunderstood my intention, and even more sorry if my presentation added to that misunderstanding. I only meant to say that in spite of the Rebbe’s beautifully worded words, the point he made, that it is only a mi’ut of individuals who align themselves with Rav Shmuel ztzvk”l and that these few did so in a very not ba’kavodikeh way and that there is no “chilukei dei’os” in America as far as this goes, there are indeed many, not a few, and they are themselves Gedolei Olam, who disagree with Rav Chaim (Rav Gershon, and lbcl”c) with Rav Aaron Leib ztzvk”l. And they do so with great trepidation.

While, I believe, the Roedelheim siddur formed the nusach ha’tefilah as far as dikduk is concerned, Nusach Ashkenaz is largely built, I think, on the nusach of Rav Shabsi Sofer and Rav Hirsh Shatz. Even further back, it is based on the nusach of one of the Geonim. Some source indicate that Nusach Ashkenaz has its roots in what they call Nusach Bavli versus Nusach Yerushalmi. It is interesting to note that many of the changes we make on Shabbos (hashkiveinu and in the berachah achas me’ein sheva) on Yom Tov in avodah in chazaras ha’shatz (she’oscha livadcha) is based on the Nusach Yerushalmi.

The majority of our avodah is in the realm of divrei ha’reshus; in areas not explicitly stated in the Torah, Mishnah, Gemora, Rishonim, Achronim, Poskim, etc. The vast majority of iur challenges are exactly that, OUR challenges. The Mesillas Yisharim explains that much like the individual who finds himself in a maze can best reach the goal by seeking the advice of those who have the vantage point of one who has already to reached the point to where you are trying to reach. For this, it is a must to seek daas Torah. True, his answers may not be found in the Torah. True, his answers may, therefore, appear as just his opinion. In reality, however, they come from the perspective of one who has seen much, accomplished much, conquered much. May you have much hatzlachah!

1) The Mishnah Berurah brings that the stripes are zeicher to the techeilis. I believe he says they are blue.
2) Many of the real Turkish talleisim worn by Belzer Chasidim (and perhaps others) have bluish stripes.
3) There is no reason to differentiate between a talis gadol and a talis koton as far as stripes goes.
4) Indeed the RaMBa”M is the source for the halachah that the beged must be the same color as the tzitzis (not the other way around as stated in one post).
5) It is oft repeated that the Israeli flag was designed as a “substitute” for the talis (i.e. We don’t need a talis, or any mitzvos, anymore since we have our own country.

@MDG –
“About the word yarmulke, from etymonline.com
yarmulke (n.) 1903, from Yiddish yarmulke, from Polish jarmułka, originally “a skullcap worn by priests,” perhaps ultimately from Medieval Latin almutia “cowl, hood.”

Two points:
(1) It is well known and widely accepted (see “The Word” and “Safah Achas”) that the etymology of many words as found in the more scholarly dictionaries are not only incorrect, but, at times, purposefully misleading.
(2) Upon hearing an Iranian Jew refer to a yarmulka, I asked him if that is how it was referred to in Iran from where he immigrated as an adult (married with school-age children). He answered of course. So it is unlikely the word is of Polish origins. It is far more likely the Polish word has its origins in the Yiddish-adopted, Lashon HaKodesh based word.

1) “The law goes according to the lenient opinion since it is a doubt of Rabbinical status (safek d’Rabbanan), . . . ”
If the known infestation levels of a particular food is greater than 50%, the food is considered muchzak b’tola’im and there is a chiyuv min ha’Torah to check. Such a case is NOT a Rabbinic prohibition but rather one of the Torah.

2) ” . . . for a person is not interested in eating the insect, but is compelled to eat it along with the food, against his will. .
. . ”
Since the particular food can generally easily be cleaned, removing all infestation, it is difficult to hear that anyone is forcing him to eat the bugs.

3) ” . . . Moreover, according to the majority of poskim, a tiny insect is batel b’shishim (nullified in sixty; that is, permissible so long as forbidden ingredients constitute no more than 1/60 of the whole) from the Torah, and it was only the Chachamim (Sages) who were stringent in declaring that a ‘briyah’ (a whole insect) is not batel (nullified) even in a thousand. . . ”
Something which ‘Only the Chachomim prohibited’ is nonetheless prohibited. And even the Kreisi who entertains the possibility that a berya is botul, is of the opinion it is so b’elef (1/1000, not 1/60) as suggested.

4) ” . . . Some poskim say that the Chachamim were stringent only in regards to an insect that has some importance, but if it is tiny and disgusting, even from rabbinical status, it is batel b’shishim. In addition, it’s also doubtful whether in actuality a tiny insect exists.”
What are the tiny insects “if they don’t even exist? An insect – for example a mite, which the nosei keilim on the Shulchan Aruch refer to as millbin or mill worms, is very visible and easily detected when they move, so there is little reason not to assur.

5) ” . . . Where can I find some sources to look through on this topic. It is quite surprising as most or all kashrus organizations make it seem as a Torah issur too eat vegetables that have not been checked for bugs.”
As explained above, any food with known or presumed infestation levels of above 50% is considered muchzak and they may not be eaten prior to checking. This obligation is a Torah obligation. From 10% to 50% (others say from as little as 5%) the obligation is to check remains, albeit of Rabbinical origin. Only levels below 10% (or 5%) are free from any obligation to check.

@RebYidd23 – “There is a long standing minhag of doing shtick at weddings to be misameach the choson and kallah.”
I may be wrong, but I believe the primary mitzvah of being misameach the choson and kallah is by expressing to one how special the other one is (i.e. Kallah na’eh va’chasudah). Believe it or not, keitzad mirakdim was not instituted by CHaZa”L to give friends of the choson the opportunity to show off their talents or to give costume stores sone business. It was for family members, tzadikim, Roshei Yeshibah, Rabbonim, etc. the opportunity to heap praises on the kallah. There are those (Rishonim perhaps) who hold this is the ikar mitzvah to be misameach the choson and kallah.

Some of us may remember Ginn books; one of the early publishers of pre-school and elementary school primers and readers. Well. . .
To expand their readership (i.e. customer base) and therefore their profit margins, they offered to customize their books for various groups. The story line remained the same, but priest could be changed to minister, pastor, or rabbi. Church could be changed to temple, sanctuary, or synagogue. Names could be changed from Dick and Jane to Paul and Mary, or even Pinchas and Miriam. And so on.
When they approached the Satmar community, the latter turned down their generous offer. They explained there is nothing about a brother and his sister and their pet dog playing ball together in the park on Sunday morning which can be translated/transformed into a Jewish book.
Nothing about, even the new testament, as displayed/depicted in the Bible Museum, could possibly express Ratzon HaShem or any of the depth of our TaNa”CH. Nothing!