Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
And that should be the ruling in America, too, because
for the first 143 years of Jews in America all the
communities followed the Dutch Sefardim.
well according to Tosafos in Avoda Zara we don’t day Kamma Kamma Batul onceit was Nisrabba Alav.
Sam, the Gemara only says that we tell her, look what we took for a Mashal.
Maseches Derech Eretz specifically says that the problem is using it for a love song. It is obvious from the Gemara as well. The Gemara didn’t pick Tehillim for an example.
That is not called having a Mesora. It is called breaking from Mesora based on historical conclusions. As we saw, it rhymes with conservative and is the common origin of every break-away.
The Saducees weren’t conservative either. Their Psak haarkened back to before Bi’as Ha’aretz. Many today harken back to before Avraham Avinu.
Interesting idea, Old man.
The word G-d might seem to originate from AZ.
It’s not the movement tat causes anything. The idea is that everything in the world is a cycle. This is the reason why a mourner eats lentils, to show that life is cycle. Hashem set the world up with a pattern of ups and downs. The concept of astrology is that the cycle of the planets and galaxies corresponds to the cycle of what happens in the world.
Similarly, the Zohar Hakadosh explains that the lines on the palm show us about the person. The lines don’t cause anything, but since it corresponds to everything in the person we can tell certain things about him.
It is possible to sleep in AND Daven with a Minyan.
Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva in Avoda Zara 16b-17a and Rav in Shabbos 75a seem to agree to Rebbi Yochanan that ?? ???? ??? ????? … ????? ???? ???? and Rebbi Meir was an exception since ?? ????? ?? ????.
Popa, Chazal say that Yitzchok actually taught him how to Shecht.
If you can aim like Reb Yona Bar Tachlifa then you may hunt birds.
The Maharshal’s “Rishonim” is different from ours. Let’s not forget that there was never a meeting when the names were doled out. Anyone familiar with the Sefarim from the Maharshal’s time can see that they use “Rishonim” sometimes for Amoraim and sometimes for the early Rishonim. The Maharshal or Beis Yosef think of the generation of the Rashba, Ritva and Rosh as Achronim. And yes, this Tosafos does seem to be compiled in those later generations.
In truth, Tosafos’ mention of the Tur is in brackets, so perhaps it is not actually from the author. Usually though, brackets in Gemara and Tosafos mean that it should be read as part of the main text, according to someone. The Tosafos I’m referring to is the end of the Dibur, Lan Bitaaniso on 11b.
On the contrary. It is pretty obvious that it is a later Pirush.
Pixelate’s real language sounds like hubble nibble squish, so he used Google Translate to post here. Probably, Google stopped supporting that language so he can’t post here anymore.
A woman can get her husband kicked out of Shul and not get an Aliya. A husband can’t do that.
rebyidd, excellent question. It bothers me every year. The answer, oddly enough, is that nobody else did.
Minhag is when it is a completely new idea. Mesora is the Psak on an issue, the waay it is done. Minhag is not to be taken lightly, either. When there are multiple Minhagim things are easier but when you change from a Minhag of the whole Klal you are being Poresh Min Hatzibur, which Chazal did not have nice things to say about, and is the beginning of a steep downward journey.
PAA, when Poskim realize that there is absolutely no justification for it and they dub it a Minhag Shtus. This is not done lightly.
When you use Mesora in an argument it is either as a defense or in reference to an undisputed Mesora. Nobody can demand that you agree to him because of something you don’t agree to or know about. But, he might be pointing out to pay attention to how things were always done, hence Mesora.
This is an argument used often in Gemara. When proposing a Shita we would ask how it can be if we all never heard of it, or Hanach Lahem Liyisroel, or Sha’al Avicha Veyagedcha.
Actually, it lookss like a Talmid of Rashi, but I don’t know who. Tosafos quotes a Pirush Rashi.
I didn’t know they were still compiling Tosafos after the Tur.
But nobody beats your humility. Start a humility thread. (Oh, you just did.)
And who is this Tosafos — that quotes the Tur?!
Sam, nevertheless he has a point. The fact is it is about letting someone use but not about giving away. This is the problem with the only coat left in Shul while mine is missing. We can’t say Nicha Lei to trade with me since he obviously has mine.
On the other hand, Yi’ush Shelo Midaas is when the person is unaware of the item being lost. In this case, we are saying that there is automatic Daas to be Maskim to sell. Automatic Daas is a Svara that we use often. Nicha Lei utilizes this.
If someone claims a Mesora then it is not a Mesora of Klal Yisroel. This is what Rav Akavya Ben Mahalalel told his son. You keep on mentioning this problem of someone ‘claiming’ a Mesora and the discussion goes on about a Mesora of Klal Yisroel. This is not a conversation.
Nobody can force anyone unaware of a Mesora to become aware of it. But when there is a known, universally accepted Mesora, then we argue that it is binding.
You also talk about how a Mesora can’t be something unfounded. Yet you agree that a Mesora can be the Psak. You said that the original topic here, Daas Torah (whatever that means at this point), has sources both ways. So what is so different about quoting the way our Mesora is on this topic from the Mesora on any other Mesora-defined Halacha?
It’s one thing to agree to disagree, but first you have to agree on what you’re disagreeing.
Is it a Kiddush Hashem to act like an attention seeker?
The idea is that while Bein Adam Lamakom is up to Hashem to allow, Bein Adam Lachaveiro leaves you with a person to deal with. Your Hetter can’t break the boundary and play with someone else’s property.
Thanks. That looks like it. But it doesn’t quite look like a Hetter.
I don’t think it’s so much an Inyan of being more Chamur than other Issurim as much as the fact that you don’t have the right. Your Heter doesn’t change someone else’s property. But if I’m recalling correctly, we safely assume that anyone has Daas to allow someone to survive.
I heard in a Shiur, never saw inside, that Reb Ashtori Haparchi says that there are things which we do that are Neged Hatlmud. Living in Mitzraim is one of them. Maybe PAA will get us the pertinent quote.
Also, Tosafos famously writes that there are things that ‘we’ do that are from Sfarim Chitzonim (i.e. Meseches Sofrim). In these cases it is the Mesora that ruled.
The Mesora is more of a decider than a Mechadesh. I think this is where Sam is taking things the other way. Mesora is when Klal Yisroel Paskened a certain way. By definition, you can’t find the later Hachra’a in the earlier words.
You are referencing those who changed and were Mechadesh as a symptom of not changing and following the accepted view and Psak.
Sam, you are quoting the exception as the rule. Surely, we weed out Minhagei Shtus, but we are very reluctant to label one as such. And ultimately, it is this checking process that givess Minhag its power.
An organism is kept alive on its own. Once in a while outside intervention is necesssary, but that is the exception, not the rule. Usually Minhagei Shtus don’t kick off in the first place. In the event that it did, and it contradicts the Halacha, we check it with what is written and weed out those few.
Yes, but he has to pay back.
Sam, I think you are reacting to something else. LF is expressing what you express at other times, that there is an approach that Klal Yisroel has had for many years and we can’t come now and redefine our approach.
Both sides of an argument can back themselves up with their selective texts (while ignoring the other sources or putting them into a new context). What carries the day is the Mesora. Those who broke from accepted Yiddishkeit (the Mesora) know that they did so. It is not about popping up with a claim of, I was Mekabel this from my Rebbe all the way from Moshe Rabbeinu. It is about announcing and pointing out what we all know as being how Klal Yisroel accepted things.
This is what Halacha is based on. It is the reason we Pasken like the Shulchan Aruch and even like Bavli.
What do you mean by entirety? Assos Sefarim Harbeh Ein Keitz. In fact, we find areas where Bavli skipped something and we picked it up from the Yerushalmi (although Rishonim are indeed reluctant to do this, and they’ll rather look all over and dig for a Remez in Bavli).
Now, although if the Gemara left out a necessary definition on something menntioned in a Mishna, that would be telling, this doesn’t mean that every definition had to have spelled out.
Torah Shel Baal Peh has what to do even after we see the words of the Gemara. Our Sefarim shelves are pretty packed. Many decisions come from a posek’s take on a Gemara or Meforash, but more often than we realize, the reading is based on what was passed down. We can’t bypass our Rebbes just because we own a copy of the Talmud.
LF’s usage of Mesora is no different than saying ‘we don’t follow that’ or similar statements.
Sam, you seem to be mixing Messora with Shita. Messora is what Klal yisroel has been doing and a Shita is what I feel or what I personally heard from my Rebbe. Mesora is our core and what we learn keeps that in check. It is Mesora that stopped us from following most of Open Orthodoxy’s technically-within-the-framework inventions.
There is a lot of misinformation here. As seen earlier in this thread, it was assumed by many outside observers that Daas Torah means that we would ask a Rov for a medical opinion. People rail against “Daas Torah” without knowing what it is.
The next argument is to invent a Chiluk of Sannhedrin to later Rabbonim, although the Pasuk says Hakohen Asher Yihyeh Bayamim Haheim and Chazal say, Yiftach Bedoro Kishmuel Bedoro. There are things that we know can’t be done without Smicha and Beis Din but that is not a liscense to make up the rest.
And, as I said earlier, Rabbonim today and Beis Din in the past did not decide on street lights and road repairs. Civil matters are left to civil servants. However, they are the ones in charge of the Torah’s attitude towards matters when an issue comes up. If Rabbonim announce that it is Asssur to rally behind an immoral candidate even at the cost of losing funding, or if they say that funding a Yeshiva to advance Torah learning is more important than an individual’s choices, these are not ‘mundane matters’. These are situations in which you are getting their ‘Psak’ in Hilchos Chilul Hashem and Limud Hatorah.
Ask any hindu.
And I used to be —
actually, who said this is such a good idea?
I’m not so sure that: ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????
Torah Shel Baal Peh is not about trying to figure out what Hashem was really thinking. It’s the other way around. Hashem quotes the Chachamim. The Torah Shebichsav is the seeds and Torah Shel Baal Peh is brought out and created by the Chachamim, as the Medrash quotes Rebbi Akiva.
By a usual Halachic discussion we don’t say this one is right and that one is wrong. But there are times that they did. That is not “?????”, that is ????? or ??? ??? ???? or ???? ???? or ?????????. There we don’t apply Eilu Va’eilu (unless you explain it like Rabbi Miller, that the intention is pure and it is Torah).
Get an Israeli Google number and send from Google Voice.
What you where on your here.
So we can ignore the Takkanos from the Amaroim. Yippeeeeee!!!!!
Mayan, keep in mind that Dassan and Aviram were very nice people. They were from the Shotrim, who famouly took beatings for protecting their brothers. In last weeks Parsha, when they said Nitnah Rosh Vinashuva Mitzraima, they meant Dassan and Aviram. They were popular amongst the masses and were seen as an alternative to Moshe and Aharon, probably as political leaders.
You have to be right at some point. His Kasha trully doesn’t bother us. But, he obviously saw the Gidul and the dying as two things done to elevate the Beged. His Kasha on Mezuza doesn’t bother me, either. Having a Sefer is very nice but having it on the door post is something else.
Holding disconnected Techeles obviously won’t Pattur the Beged. Having Gedilim is part of the Mitzva and dying one or two strings with Techeles is also part of the Mitzva. Obviously, he viewed Techeles like a Mezuza, that it sanctifies the Beged.
That’s surprising, coming from you!
Probably, Techeles was the name for Tzitzis in general, as we find in Chazal. ??? ?? ????? means Tzitzis in general. Also, I think it is not hard to realize that the Gidul is what is necessary. The coloring appears as what you must add to the Tzitzis.
The Issur of Klayim is not because it is immoral. It is a Chok. We have no problem buying Klayim from a non-Jew in Chutz Laaretz. The only type of fooling around with the world that is Assur is Kishuf, since it is called Makchishim Pamalya Shel Maala — it is going against the system designed by Hashem. Doing things naturally is within the system.
He was using the same type of logic we use in a Kal Vachomer. We don’t know the reason the Mitzva was given but we observe the given parameters and use them as laws. We don’t understand ‘why’ but we understand ‘that’. The Gemara uses this type of ‘Svara’.
Here too, we observe how there is a Chiyuv on a four-cornered garment which Techeles resolves. So we know that for whatever reason, or even for no reason, Techeles ‘fixes’ this garment. Therefore, he asked why would Techeles itself have to be ‘fixed’.