Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I can’t speak for other Religious Zionists, but my personal understanding of the medina’s relationship to the final geula is how it facilitated and continues to facilitate kibutz galuyos. One of the most important aspects of the medina since the beginning is the right of return which gives all Jews automatic citizenship to the medina if they want it. In this way, the medina has enabled an incredible amount of Jews to return to the Land of Israel, to the point where almost 50% of our nation has returned to our Land. Assuming kibutz galuyos is a return of our people to our land, and that kibutz galuyos is an essential component of the final geula, I find it hard to separate the medina from the ongoing kibutz galuyos and the final geula.
“Each Dayan who votes guilty must truly believe with his entire heart and soul that the evidence proves beyond *any* doubt that the accused is absolutely guilty, in order for the Dayan to be permitted to vote guilty.”
Is that true? Even if a Dayan thinks a person is guilty… like because of the evidence he is 75 or 85% sure he did, he still can’t vote guilt chayav unless he is 1005 sure without any doubt in his mind? Do you have a source that a judge can only vote guilty if he is 100% sure even? Someone, including a judge, can believe something to be true without being convinced to 100% certainty.
DY- you have to take everything in context. In 1948, just three years after the end of the Holocaust… Hisgarus b’umos wasn’t a top concern.
And that’s certainly a legitimate approach.
Joseph- I didn’t mean they weren’t answered. I meant that they weren’t answered by the classic halachic compendiums that I listed. Of course they were answered in different ways. And you are illustrating my point exactly, each side thinks theirs is the only pshat. There doesn’t seem to be any אלו ואלו even though there is no clarity in the Gemara itself and those Rishonim/early Achronim I listed don’t discuss it (even though those are the starting point in determining psak halacha). It seems strange that each side is so militantly against any other possible interpretation. Even Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai seemed to have more respect for each other’s position when they were arguing about far more serious matters like yibum vs. giluy arayos which led to mamzerus. As I also mentioned, I think the timing of יום העצמאות is sending us a message to be a little bit more respectful of the other side. There is not just one way to answer those questions.
The 3 shevuos are incredibly vague and without a psak in the normal sources (Rosh, Rif, Rambam, Tur, Shulchan Aruch, Rama) many basic questions remain unanswered… How exactly do you violate them? Who is the prohibition on? Until when are they in force? Are they dependent on one another? What are the practical ramifications for future generations if they are indeed broken?
Obviously Satmar and many Charedim have one approach and Dati Leumi have a different approach and there are presumably hybrid approaches in answering these very basic questions… But אלו ואלו… It’s a dispute and each side should be respected. For some reason, both sides take their interpretation as the only interpretation which is not the way we approach most other areas of halacha.
It’s no coincidence that יום העצמאות falls out during the time period when we are supposed to be correcting לא נהגו כבוד זה בזה.
I think it would be quite extreme for a girl to be repulsed by a boy who got a halachically valid heter to shave.
It’s a tough question. A girl may intellectually be supportive of her date not shaving during sefirah, but she can’t control who she is or isn’t attracted to. She may not find her date attractive due to the beard and the relationship may stop in it’s tracks because of that. I think that’s a valid reason to rely on a heter.
I haven’t read every post here… I read the first post and it seems like there is a dispite on whether taking “tznius too far” is a bad thing, good thing, neutral but if the tzibur wants it then who has any right to complain… something along those lines.
I don’t want to comment on the specific case in the OP, but theoretically, in a very similar case but it was a picture of a 4 year old boy in camp wearing shorts that was blurred out in the name of tznius, would people have the same reaction? I mean, if the tzibur felt that a young boy’s legs should not be shown in a public magazine, would this be an appropriate expression of tznius?
IMHO, people can do what they want. If there is a consensus (but I mean a real consensus, not social peer pressure), to blur out pictures of boys and girls who’s pants or skirts are “too short” that’s fine. But I think it’s hard to call blurring a picture of a little boy for wearing shorts “tznius,” “halacha” or a “chumra”. So too, just because people want certain pictures blurred out of a magazine, and they have every right to do so… that doesn’t automatically make it an expression of tznius, halacha, or a chumra.
Iacis- really? But isn’t there a mitzvah to put on Tefilin every day? So the burden of proof would logically be for the exception to that rule. You should need a source to exempt you from Tefilin on a particular day, not to obligate you.
I will preface my question with a brief summary of the sugya as I understand it. The debate on whether one should wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed seems to have both a סברא component and a textual component.
The סברא component is whether Chol HaMoed is considered an אות. Tefilin are considered an אות and are not worn when the day itself is also considered an אות. Shabbos and Yom Tov are considered an אות because of the work prohibitions and therefore Tefilin is not worn. The question is whether the Mitzvos of Lulav, sukkah, matzah, and partial work prohibition on Chol HaMoed also makes it an אות.
The textual debate is between the simple understanding of a Mishnah and the explicit understanding of the Zohar. The Mishnah in Moed Katan says that one can write Tefilin on Chol HaMoed. The simple understanding (though not necessarily the only one) is that is permitted to write because tefilin have an immediate use… There is a requirement to wear them on Chol HaMoed. The Zohar however is explicit that one should not wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed… And the Zohar speaks very strongly against this practice.
It seems that this dispute falls along “party lines”. Chasidim and Sepahrdi Achronim who normally put more emphasis on sources like the Zohar, say not to wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed. Most early Ashkenazic Achronim/poskim who normally do not emphasize the Zohar especially in determining halacha, say to wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed.
The one outlier is the Vilna Gaon who said not to wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed (which is the reason why most Orthodox Jews today, including Ashkenazim, especially in Israel, do not wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed). However, I do not know why the Vilna Gaon ruled like that. Did he put halachic emphasis on this Zohar? Did he have reason to learn the Mishnah in Moed Katan differently? Why did the Vilna Gaon divert from most of the other Ashkenazic authorities?
Akuperma- I’m not sure if you are arguing for or against expanding the definition of kitniyos. Is it a bad thing or good thing to be able to prepare foods that we enjoy on Pesach in a chameitz free manner?
I found this quote by catcher Ryan Lavarnaway particularly insightful and meaningful:
Everything is muttar on Earth because ??? ???? ?? ????? but ??? ??? ??? ????.
Everything is muttar in an airplane because ?? ????? ???
There is also no chiyuv for a 13 year old to drink at all outside of his seudah while he’s going around collecting. Also considering the sakanah and the plethora of shitos who say otherwise (like, as I mentioned, 2 of the most prominent sources to contemporary Ashkenazic halacha, the Rama and Mishnah Berurahs’s), there is probably no chiyuv for them to get drunk at all… Just to drink a little bit more than they usually drink.
With regard to wearing a tie, I once asked one of my Rebbeim if I were to dress for davening the way I would dress in front of a king or president, logic would dictate that I should wear a suit and tie and then there would be no difference between davening and Shabbos. He suggested that it meant if you were standing in front of a king that you see multiple times a day like if you were working for him. In this day and age, it would mean no jacket and tie but he still suggested to wear a jacket so that something special is worn specifically for davening.
With regard to the hat and JFK, it may have been true at the time that hats were still respectable and he was lowering the bar for when to dress respectfully but that’s certainly not true anymore. Now a hat is simply not respectable. Even if a real king would exist, a vast majority of people would not wear hats as it’s no longer respectable and might even look a bit ridiculous. JFK may have started it but the transformation is now complete. Styles and respectability change. What was respectable in Rashis time in place was not the same as the Shulchan Aruch which wasn’t the same as the GRA which isn’t the same for us. The stylistic reality is, is that hats are out.
With regard to one hand out of the sleeve, I think Rav Soloveichik held that way. At one point later in life he stopped wearing a jacket for Shacharis. He explained because he just inherited R’ Chaim’s tefilin which were quite large and couldn’t fit under his jacket sleeve. He felt it was more respectable to not wear a jacket than to wear one abnormally with one hand out of the sleeve.
If it’s a legitimate disagreement, then most likely someone else of higher caliber also disagrees or explains the Chofeitz Chaim differently than you understood it. Of course one can disagree with the Chafeitz Chaim if there is Acharon of comparable caliber that disagrees. If no one disagrees with the Chofeitz Chaim in that regard, then it is more difficult to justify.
Joseph- honestly, it hasn’t really come up in a very long time so I haven’t really thought about it. I wonder if it’s a problem but I assume not because a glass of kiddush wine is not something the authorities care about. I guess you could make the same argument for Purim as many have here.
But it seems like at the very least you admit that there’s no halachic reason to serve them wine when they are not partaking in your seudah and when they will have a seudah on your own. Considering the possibility that kids can abuse alcohol (and unfortunately we see that they do especially on Purim), then what’s the point?
Do you serve them wine if they don’t want to wash, eat bread, and bentch?
I also don’t think your assessment of the chiyuv is correct. I bet even the Roshei Yeshiva you mention who advocate the shitah of the Shulchan Aruch would agree it’s only an ideal and not me’akev… In other words they would agree that a person would be yotzei if they “only” followed the Rama and Mishnah Berurahs’s shitah of yoser milimudo. Yes, we all try and be machmir, but when a chumra comes at the expense of a din (in this case dina demalchusa dina) one would presume the din takes precedence over the chumra. Yes, even the Rama’s shitah violates Dina demalchusa dina as that would be illegal as well, but I am under the impression that the more you serve a minor is a bigger violation of that law and by extension dina demalchusa dina.
Joseph- assuming they have their own seudah then someone is violating Dina demalchusa dina. There is no chiyuv to do it twice.
The quaint rare minhag is the combining of ad delo yada peshuto kemashmao outside of the seudah. Giving kids things to drink when they come to visit you during the day is either not fulfilling their chiyiv or going way too far. It certainly violates Dina demalchusa Dina according to most shittos when the kids are underage and no chiyuv is being fulfilled.
Joseph- between all of the shitos regarding drinking on Purim, how some meforshim say you only need yoser milimudo and go to sleep (most notably the Rama, Pri Megadim, and Mishnah Berurah), the shitos that say ad deli yada is not literal (among them I think is the Maven Avraham who says it’s just enough wine to not be able to sing a complicated song with ad delo yada in it or work out gematriyoa), and the shitos that say the chiyuv is only during the meal (the implication of the Shulchan Aruch and Rambam), you are being machmir for a random shitah I am unaware of (if he even exists) and violating Dina demalchusa Dina according to everyone else, including everyone I listed above. Not to mention we are machmir on pikuach nefesh and young boys don’t usually know how much they can take safely.
I think it’s fascinating how people are quicker to criticize Jake Turx than President Trump. If the same exact thing happened with President Obama instead of President Trump, I suspect the reaction would be slightly different…
R Akiva thought Bar Kochva was Mashiach and not one of the other Tanaim. It doesn’t sound like the Mashiach will be one of the Gedolei Hador.
I always understood that the Charedi movement began with the Chassam Sofer’s famous quote “??? ???? ?? ?????” which until that point was not used for anything other than wheat. Seeing the societal changes and the danger it imposed on traditional Judaism, the Chassam Sofer built stronger gates separating the Jewish community from the Goyish world by prohibiting “???”. As I understand it, this was a new innovation, something not necessarily practiced by Chazal and the Rishonim (which is why it is the beginning of a “new” movement), but was instituted to protect Jews from falling off the derech. In other words, it was a small change in the Mesorah in the hope to stop Jews from completely abandoning the Mesorah.
“Men’s job is to go out in the world whereas women’s job is in the home.”
Unless the man is in kollel. then the woman has to go out in the world and run the home.
I haven’t read everything in this thread and it seems to have veered off topic. I want to ask the original question again worded slightly differently and please let me know if this was answered already.
As an example, I will use Chalav Yisroel. Some poskim say that you can drink non-Chalav Yisroel milk because of government health supervision while others say you can’t rely on that supervision. Those who paskin that you can only drink Chalav Yisroel think the other side is wrong, maybe even eating/drinking not kosher, but not apikorsus. It’s a machlokes in halacha.
Some poskim hold that the 3 shevuos are authoritative, some do not, some hold they were never actually violated with the founding of the State of Israel. Each side thinks the other side is wrong in this area of halacha… but why does it make the followers of that side apikorsim? Why is this different than any other of halacha?
Obviously, I’m not talking about the original secular Zionists who believed that having a State in Israel was a replacement for Torah and Halacha. I’m talking about religious Jews who either hold that one is allowed to have a State in Israel before Moshiach or even that it is a positive thing to have a State in Israel before Mashiach. Why is that apikorsus for those who hold of a strict interpretation and authoritative nature of the 3 Shevuos? Why is this not just a machlokes in halacha like all of the others?
In the words of R’ Jeremy Stern, the head of ORA on the RCA “imposing” a controversial halachik tool on all of its members (slightly edited for context):
This concern is precisely why we formulated the resolution not to require THE halachic prenup for the prevention of Get-refusal, but A halachic prenup for the prevention of Get-refusal. There is literally something for everyone. Really. There is NO posek who argues that a “Rav Moshe Prenup,” which is simply a binding arbitration agreement, creates a Get meuseh. Not one. So, we are not imposing a contentious halachic stance on anyone, since there is no contention with a Rav Moshe Prenup. Besides for that, if you’re a talmid of Rav Bleich (or Rav Bleich himself!), you can use Rav Bleich’s prenup! And if you don’t like that one either, you could use Rabbi David Mescheloff’s Marital Agreement to Mediate (google it to learn more), which he writes in several places has universal halachic acceptance, including from Rav Elyashiv.
I go back and forth and which one is the lesser of two evils… right now I’m thinking Hillary is the lesser of 2 evils (in terms of being president). I mean,I think Hillary is a worse person (if I can actually judge a person by what I read about them in the newspapers like about the crimes she allegedly committed and tried to cover up)… but that doesn’t mean she’ll make a worse president. I would like to think I’m a better person than either Trump or Hillary but I would make an awful president.
Hillary has her party behind her. She has some of the Republicans behind her. She has more experience in politics in general and in the White House. She has better diplomacy skills. She has stronger connections to others in the political world. She has a much more presidential personality (at least from what we see in public). Trump will isolate congress and the rest of the world with his big mouth. His personality is horrible for someone who is president. I also think Hillary will enjoy more bipartisan support than President Obama did because many Republicans refuse to support Trump, so they wouldn’t hold that against her necessarily.
The only thing I will say positively about Trump is that his and his party’s platform towards Israel is better than Hillary and the Democrats, which would be the only reason I would consider voting for him (especially because I live in Israel). But I don’t think he would make a better president.
Ben LEvi- your comment is an affront to our Mesorah. Sure there are different minhagim between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, and sometimes psak din is a bit different…. but it’s the same Torah Shebichsav and the same Torah Sheba’al Peh. Other than maybe having a separate minyan and a separate halacha seder which is such a small portion of the day, there is no reason they can’t learn the same Torah together in the same schools.
Health, Joseph- would it be so theologically challenging for you to accept that God created gay people and that reparative therapy doesn’t work for everyone? Well, if it’s hard for you to accept that imagine how much harder it is for a gay person to accept that. Imagine how theologically challenging it is for a person to realize that through no fault of their own, they are attracted to their gender. Imagine how hard it is for a person, that no matter how much psychotherapy they try, no matter how hard they cry on Yom Kippur for freedom from this challenge, they still are attracted to the same gender?
Imagine how much harder it is for them to be labeled freaks and perverts in our community? How jewish news sites seem to label them as to’eivah? How they feel like they need to choose between frumkeit and achieving emotional/psychological/physical fulfillment because should they dare decide that they can’t handle being alone they will be ostracized from the community… that in this regard frumkeit is all or nothing? Is it any wonder why they fall of the derech, why they choose companionship and love over halacha? Why they feel they have no place in the Orthodox community and must reject it entirely?
Is it any wonder why they would want to have a parade in our holy city… to be able to tell us that they exist and that they no longer want to be judged and marginalized by us? They want to send a message to gay teenagers and young adults who are in hiding that they can still be happy… that there’s no place for them in Orthodoxy? That depression and suicide is not the only option (and unfortunately, it is a serious problem for those who feel they have no place in our communities)?
The parade is a terrible thing… it is publicizing, promoting, and celebrating a lifestyle that violates the Torah. It’s even worse because it is being done in our holy city. But before we condemn we must understand why they are doing what they are doing We have to understand what challenges they face in our own backyard. We have to ask ourselves if any of their motivations and concerns are indeed legitimate. And we have to ask ourselves, are doing everything we can on our part to solve those legitimate problems, or are we making a terrible situation worse?
It’s quite possible that there is absolutely nothing we can do within the guidelines of halacha to make them feel accepted, respected, and loved… or at the very least not judged. But we must try. We have a responsibility on our end to do what we can to ensure that a parade like this in our holy city is unnecessary.
A gay person is like a mamzer, destined to never get married and be alone for the rest of their lives (at least from a romantic perspective) if they want to follow halacha. I’m getting the vibe that people here would feel more sympathy for someone who is a mamzer than for someone who is gay. Being gay is more than just a desire, but in the same way our spouses complete us in emotional and psychological ways, a gay person wants the same sort of emotional and psychological companionship. Obviously, that’s not a heter for anything, but understanding their struggles will allow us to accept them into our communities with greater ease, and will allow us to be a little less judgmental when faced with someone who can’t seem to handle the challenge as most of us haven’t the slightest clue what it means that halacha expects us to be alone for the rest of our lives.
Miami- or you can conclude that is plenty safe (even if not exactly as safe as Boro Park) and that the benefits of living in EY outweigh the negatives. This doesn’t have to do anything with the medina. Even if you don’t have a duty to live there, it may still be mitzvah kiyumis, and there are numerous Chazals of the benefits of the kedushah of EY.
If we want to remove the medina aspect of this topic, the question is, do we have a right to put our lives in danger to move to Eretz Yisroel and more specifically to Yehuda and Shomron? The problem with this question is that it is already assuming our lives are in danger in EY and the “proof” is that it is more dangerous than America.
Whether that’s true or not seems irrelevant to the halachic topic at hand. We don’t define sakana by comparing it other similar actions. There is an objective definition to sakana, and if living in EY meets that definition, then we have a serious question. If not, then we don’t, regardless of how much safer America may be.
What mitzvah can be done by someone else? If you’re talking about the army, each soldier makes the army as a whole stronger. I think it’s a stretch to say it can be done by someone else.
DY- they wanted to save the lives of those who were halachically Jewish.
I’ve been thinking about this, and I’m trying to formulate my feelings… maybe someone can help me. I find it harder to appreciate those who I am jealous of. I am jealous of Lomdei Torah. I wish I could be in kollel. I wish I could live that life. For some reason, and I can’t really explain why, it’s harder for me to say “thank you” and “you are so lucky, I wish I was you” at the same time. Why are these somewhat mutually exclusive in my mind? It’s the same way with a really wealthy person giving a lot of money. I appreciate what he’s doing, but that is somehow tempered by the wish to have the financial ability to make that same kind of donation myself.
A soldier, on the other hand, is not someone I am jealous of. I do not want the basic training or the sleepless nights. I do not want the physical, psycholgical or emotional toll. I do not want the fear that my life is on the line. I do not want to kill or watch my fellow soldiers be killed. There is nothing about the soldier’s life that I want in mine. The soldiers are doing the job that is so selfless in my mind… they are doing it completely in my place. They are doing the job that I choose not to do, and that I am afraid of doing.
My appreciation is so much stronger for those who play the roles that I don’t want to play, than for those who play the roles I wish I could play. Does that make sense?
I’m not saying we’re better off than if we didn’t have a medina. I have no idea. I’m saying we’re better than before we had the medina. Before we had the medina, there were very few Jews in EY. Before the Medina, there was much less Torah in EY. Before the Medina, there was less anti-Semitism in EY itself, but I think overall things are a lot better than they were beforehand (the Holocaust, pograms). The Medina (and USA for that matter) has helped Torah Jewry grow immensely than what was beforehand. The difference between the Medina and USA is that the Medina is doing it in Eretz HaKedoshah.
DY- Probably the soldiers. The Learners do more to keep the world going but the soldiers risk and sacrifice far more. I appreciate more a poor man who give as much as he can, then a rich man who give a lot more but only a small percentage of his wealth. The Lomdei Torah (or most of them at least) sacrifice the ability to live a life of gashmiyus in exchange for a life of ruchniyus. The soldiers stand on the front lines from where many don’t return.
mw13- I’m talking about Torah in Eretz Yisroel. That has not always existed. That has grown exponentially since Hakamas HaMedina. Arguably because of Hakamas HaMedina.
DY- I’m celebrating that we can now return to EY en masse. We can serve HKBH in EY en masse. We are protected from our enemies in EY. Is this what the founders had in mind? Probably not. But the day that this Medina started, is a positive day, even if the founders had different intentions. It is certainly not despite the events of the Hakams HaMedina because without Hakamas Hamedina none of this would likely have happened.
DY- Well, according to your analogy, I also saw him swindled by Shimon. I saw Shimon putting him in that situation bemeizid.
Medinas Yisroel did not cause the hatred. Eisav Sonei es Ya’akov. Bechol dor vador omdim aleinu lechaloseinu. In every generation until 1948, they wanted to kill us… now suddenly the medina is the cause of the hatred? If not for the medina, anti-Semitism would have ended after WWII? Do you honestly believe that?
And even if you’re right, that the medina caused all the hatred, it’s still unlike your analogy. Shimon ripped off Reuven on purpose to steal his money and take advantage of him. Shimon was not looking out for Reuven’s best interests.
The Medina, on the other had, was looking to protect Klal Yisroel from the dangers of anti-Semitism. They were trying to be a safe haven for the Jewish People. According to you, they were wrong, and their efforts produced the opposite results and now they are trying to correct their mistake by protecting the Jews from the enemies they inadvertently created. I don’t think that’s what happened, but even if it was, it is still unlike you analogy.