ubiquitin

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 4,651 through 4,700 (of 5,405 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Kashrus at your neighbor's #1082882
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    yaakov

    No worries I’ll help you understand. We all pasken “sheilos” all the time. The difference between the most people and a rav is where there knowledge ends. For that matter your Rav presumably has Rav that he asks when a question posed is out of his comfort zone.

    For example If I ask you “what bracha do I make on an apple?” I assume you feel comfortable answering and won’t say “ask a Rav”

    Say I keep asking:

    “baked apple?”

    “baked apple with ice cream?”

    “Apple cake”

    “what if eaten during meal”

    etc etc

    At some point the question is above your “paygrade” and youll say ask a Rav. And that is appropriate but not every question needs a Rav per se.

    Taken a step further, there are questions well above youre Rav’s paygrade such as complicated End-of -life issues, that are above HIS “paygrade” and he will ask his Rav.

    The only question that remains is where the chalv-stam question posed falls in the scale. I feel comfortable answering. OF course the poster is free to ask his Rav, and I am not insulted if he doesnt want to listen to anonymous poster in an online forum.

    Hope you understand (even if you disagree)

    in reply to: Kashrus at your neighbor's #1082878
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Depends why you dont eat chalav stam.

    If it is becasue of concern for tarfus (either becasue of litteral concern for treifah or chalv akum) then you shouldnt.

    IF you hold it is mutar but follow a personal chumra along the lines of “baal nefesh” then you can decide where to draw the line. Be makpid on keilim completly, only when ben yomo, or never.

    If you arent sure why you avoid it, you can eat.

    in reply to: 'Halachic Dinner" – What do you think about it? #1083271
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    newbee You said””instead of just eating expensive and exotic food, they tried to rationalize it with talmud torah.”

    This is siliness. Why does it need rationalization? becasue they, are not on the level of following mesulas yesharim? That doesn tneed rationalization. That is perfectly ok

    How about this:

    even when eating exotic foods they engage in talmud Torah

    in reply to: 'Halachic Dinner" – What do you think about it? #1083252
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    newbee

    Why is it yetzer hara?

    I dont know about kedusha and tahara but there is talmud torah. In fact seeral posters here would have learned a thing or two regarding topics they clearly know little about like mesora of birds, the controversy regarding swordfish etc

    (at least at the mesora dinner, I dont know the content of lectures at this dinner)

    in reply to: 'Halachic Dinner" – What do you think about it? #1083237
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    nishtdaynagesheft

    I’m sorry what is the case in point regarding swordfish?

    I have never heard of a shita requiring a mesora for fish. Have you?

    At any rate here is a interesting source

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12060&st=&pgnum=19

    list in hapardes 1933 of kosher fish according to the Agudas Harabanim it includes Swordfish and sturgeon

    in reply to: 'Halachic Dinner" – What do you think about it? #1083234
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    nishtdaynagesheft

    I’m sorry what is the case in point regarding swordfish?

    I have never heard of a shita requiring a mesora for fish. Have you?

    At any rate here is a interesting source

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12060&st=&pgnum=19

    list in hapardes 1933 of kosher fish according to the Agudas Harabanim it includes Swordfish and sturgeon

    in reply to: 'Halachic Dinner" – What do you think about it? #1083230
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Newbee

    Not quite, usually during the course of the dinner various shiurim are given on the topic related to the foods at hand.

    At least this is the case for the mesora dinners

    in reply to: Is Shabbos too easy #1082943
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    I’m sorry where on earth did you get the notion from that Shabbos isnt supposed to convenient?

    The problems with Kosher switch are very real, R’ Moshe assered Timers, not because they are easy!

    shabbos is described with words like oneg, menucha. Where does this idea that making it convenient is wrong in of itself?

    in reply to: 'Halachic Dinner" – What do you think about it? #1083195
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    sounds delicous

    hope they all feel better!

    Its been on my to do list for a while

    in keeping with “asid liten din vecheshbon al kol sheraasa eino velo achal”

    http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14142&st=&pgnum=475

    in reply to: If the world is really round #1082756
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Hi all

    a couple of points:

    1) Round and sphere are not synonyms, the ancients (virtually?) all believed the earth was round, they did not believe it was a sphere. They viewed it as a flat disk some cultures had elaborate systems in place such as a disk on the back of an elephent or turtle.

    2) The above is true for the “hamon Am” the intelligentsia knew for thousands of years that the earth is spherical. There is much observational evidence for the spherical shape of earth including ships going over the horizon, lunar eclipses, and careful mapping of the sun/stars in different positions. In fact not only did Ancient Greek philosphers accept a spherical earth, but in 240 B.C.E Eratosthenes calculated the circumference with decent precision

    3) The yerushalmi does not necessarily mean the Earth is shaped like a ball. Clearly, “es hayam Kekarah” does not fit with the Earth as we observe it. Some rishonim understood it to mean that the deity was in control of the earth “like a ball” i.e. like one controls a ball,not that that was the shape. Similar to makal which clearly isnt referring to shape. Rabbeinu chanalel says this clearly, Pnei Moshe is also mashma like this.

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    Youre right about that last point,

    CA

    You seem to have youre own theory of economics that isnt based on supply and demand.

    My last point didnt prove anything, but thats becasue of DY’s reason not yours

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    CA

    Consider the reverse. Say instead of increasing the minumum wage. We approached Mcdonalds with a fresh batch of laborers who are willing to work at half the current minumum wage (PRetend that for whatever reason this is all legal) therby dropping th cost

    Do you think Mcdonalds would say “no thank you, if we drop the cost that will just drop the price so we dont gain anything” Or would they jump at the oppurtunity to produce the same burger charge the same amount and make more profit?

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    CA

    I was asking “Do you thi9nk…” Mcdonalds decided to make 50 cents a burger becasue they (Mcdonalds) feels thats all they deserve even though they can just as easily charge more money per burger and sell the same number of burgers.

    I was asking that rhetoricly, since it obviously isnt true. Rather since price is detemrined by supply and demand. If Mcdonalds charged more per burger (artificaly increasing the price) demand would drop and they would not make more.

    The reason they charge 1.00 a burger is NOT because that Is the cost + profit, like you said in the OP (and if they felt they deserved more profit they can just charge more). It is becuase based on current supply and demand models that is all they can charge (to make the money they make). If they could make the more money by charging 1.50 of course they would!

    Granted this is an oversimplification. But your question in the OP is built on an incorrect premise

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    Not neccesarily good heartedness, I’ts not like Mcdonalds is reevaluating their profit margins daily and checking all branches to make sure all minimum wage empoies are working as hard as they can. If the minumum wage goes up and their profits go down then they might be pushed to reevalute and come up with a solution.

    I’m confused though. ARe you really saying the price of an item is not (primarly) determined by supply and demand?

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    Lol

    No.

    but if you dont like that option I gave 2 others

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    CA

    There is a third possibility: that Mcdonalds will still sell burgers at more than cost though make less profit than they do now.

    alternativly they will recoup their losses in other ways by cutting down the size of the burger (slightly) less pickles lettuce etc… OR hire fewer workers

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    ca

    The consumer doesnt care about cost. He cares about price.

    and besides in your OP you said

    “I don’t understand the rationale behind raising the minimum wage, doesn’t that make things more EXPENSIVE?…it’s basic economics…the cost of a product is based on raw materials + direct labor (how much the worker works X wage) + manufacturing overhead, which is computed based off of labor costs (like .25 of labor costs)”

    Expensive for whom? In context it seems clear you meant the consumer, which is not necessarily correct.

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    CA

    “however everyone agrees the price cannot be less than the cost of the product”

    This isnt remotely true. You can develop something with little demand say a bad-tasting lollipop. You spend a lot of money developing a particular bad taste. Say it cost you $5 a pop to develop.

    Trust me with little demand you arent selling it for more than $5.

    You might be able to create some demand and sell it as a novelty item or a trick lollipop or something but you will have to sell it at less than cost. There is absolutely no doubt if you want to sell it your price will have to be less than cost (obviously you wont be profitable, but its better than not selling them at all)

    As I said in the last comment. The main determinants of price (i.e what the consumer is willing to pay) are supply and demand.

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    CA

    “however everyone agrees the price cannot be less than the cost of the product”

    This isnt remotely true. You can develop something with little demand say a mud-flavored lollipop. You spend a lot of money developing the exact taste of mud. Say it cost you $5 a pop to develop.

    Trust me with little demand you arent selling it for more than $5.

    You might be able to create some demand and sell it as a novelty item or a trick lollipop or something but you will have to sell it at less than cost. There is absolutely no doubt if you want to sell it your price will have to be less than cost (obviously you wont be profitable, but its better than not selling them at all)

    As I said in the last comment. The main determinants of price (i.e what the consumer is willing to pay) are supply and demand.

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    I’m not sure about your bottom line. there are leading economists and many studies on both sides of the issue. Thus I dont claim to know either way.

    The OP said “the cost of a product is based on raw materials + direct labor (how much the worker works X wage) + manufacturing overhead, which is computed based off of labor costs (like .25 of labor costs)”

    This is simply not true. The determinants of cost are (mainly) supply and demand if those don’t change the price of an item wont change.

    Now as I and Barry laid out earlier. Increasing minum wage might increase the affordibality for burgers and thus increase the demand and thus increase the price. But not for the reason the OP said

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY the thrust of my comment was correcting the OP’s oversimplification

    “the cost of a product is based on raw materials + direct labor (how much the worker works X wage) + manufacturing overhead, which is computed based off of labor costs (like .25 of labor costs)”

    This is not all there is, what is probably more important is what the public is welling (or has available) to spend on the item. I can have a cheap item that costs me 0.50 that only I know how to make but that is very popular and charge a lot of money. On the other hand if there is an expensive item that is in little demand I cant charge the cost and might have to sell it a loss.

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    i’ll pose the same question to you as to CA:

    “When gas prices fluctuate obviously the cost of a burger (to the manufacturer) fluctuates as well since they need to truck the cows, meat etc. Do you think their burger prices fluctuate alongside increases/decreases in gas prices?”

    Ill also pose a second question

    why do you think McDonalds doesnt charge 1.50 a burger instead of $1. Do you think its because they dont think that 1.50 is a fair price since given the cost of meat, labor etc say it comes out to 50 cents a burger and they only deserve 50 cents profit?

    As an aside I’m not sure how much labor factors in to the price per burger at all. For example, you may or may not now this but Dunkin donuts spends more on the cup then they do on the coffee. If the price of a coffee bean would double it would barely (if at all) effect the price of coffee at all since the coffee is so cheap to the provider in the first place.

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    I never said otherwise

    “…is not just based on how much a burger cost them. It is far more complicated than that.”

    CA

    “additionally, if the price of burgers go up (because people have more money to spend on them as you say) then there is inflation where the burger is anyway the same percentage of a persons hourly wage”

    That is essentially what I said, Barry said it above too.

    When gas prices fluctuate obviously the cost of a burger (to the manufacturer) fluctuates as well since they need to truck the cows, meat etc. Do you think their burger prices fluctuate alongside increases/decreases in gas prices?

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Coffee

    Economics is not quite as simple as you lay out. Mcdonalds doesn’t just add up the cost of a burger add some profit and charge that amount. There is also an element of them charging what they think they can get for it. If they think they would sell just as many burgers charging $1.50 vs $1.00 of course they would charge the $1.50! So increasing the minimum wage wouldn’t automatically increase the price. It’s not like the reason they dont charge the extra 50 cents is out of the goodness of their hearts to provide cheap burgers.

    In other words the reason they charge a dollar for a burger instead of 1.50 is not just based on how much a burger cost them. It is far more complicated than that.

    What might happen though is increasing the minum wage would put more money in the hands of the “burger buyers” thus letting them spend more for burgers thus increasing the price of the burger.

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075283
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    bump

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    “If someone is racist, wouldn’t they by definition be unattracted to people of that given race anyways?”

    Youve said silly things before, but this takes the cake.

    edited

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Akuperma

    “Almost by definition, a frum family is more concerned about the frumkeit of a prospective son-in-law than any other factor.”

    Are you for real?

    Perhaps it should be like that but in reality you are way off. Read any shiduch related thread on this forum, any shiduch column in any frum publication over the past decade

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075282
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    I’m curious what people think the response would have been if the Kosher Switch people had been more honest.

    In other words if instead of marketing it as a great addition to “Every home” and pretending that they had rabbinic backing for this, if they had said:

    look we have this invention Some rabbonim say it is ok for everybody (R’ Ben Chaim, R’ Chaim Zvi Shapira (assuming his haskama wasnt edited)), some say it is ok mitzad melacha but may be a problem of zilzul Shabbos (R’ Oelbaum), some are ok with it in threory but never actually gave a haskama (R’ Steinberg, let’s be honest wishing “hatzlacha” means he doesnt (didnt?) view it as an issur, but it obviously isnt quite a haskama either, I doubt he would wish hatzlacha to my opening a McDonalds), some allow it for Cholim (R’ Neuwirth, R’ Harfanes)and every person shoudl discuss with their Rav of it is right for them

    (Of course this is more theoretical than practical, since the above probably wouldnt be financially viable they certainly wouldnt raise over $50,000 in a few days)

    Now obviously those who asser would still Asser, but lets be honest there are a decent number of Rabbonim who allow (allowed?) it (In practice or in theory) in at least a limited situation.

    There is no way to know for sure, but do people think the opposition would be as strong?

    Another question, I couldnt help but notice the conspicuous absence of this story in the yated, the closest they came to mentioning it was a strangely worded letter from zman switch describing how theyu are different than kosher switch, without actually mentioning kosher switch, any idea why?

    in reply to: Do MO believe in non-strawman daas Torah? #1155849
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    PAA

    Does “mevatel Daas” mean following him even if you think it is wrong,(eg I dont understand wny my R”Y said no to prepare for divorce before marriage when chazal already did, but that is daas torah) or accepting what he says as right?(eg “One shouldnt prepare for divorce before marriage and kesuba is complelty different”)

    Which is harder?

    in reply to: Do MO believe in non-strawman daas Torah? #1155848
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    “Of course it wouldn’t fix it. It wouldn’t fool anyone. “

    Exactly, you have your reasons for being against prenups they may be halachic, they may be hashkafic or a combination. you may even be right.

    My only objection is to the idea that a prenup is wrong “because it is wrong hashkafically to plan for divorce before you are married ” This is silliness becasue part of what kesuba does is exactly the same ie. plan for divorce before they are married. You then added the artifical distinction that well kesuba does other things too, but you agree that if prenup did other things too it still “wouldnt fix it” In other words the oposititon to prenup, valid as it may be, is not becasue “it is wrong hashkafically to plan for divorce before you are married”

    Joseph

    “Why is “distinction” in quotes? You seriously see little distinction between the two?”

    There is alot of distinction between the two but not all distinctions are real. Another distinction is that prenup is an english word as opposed to kesuba which is Hebrew. I assume you would dissmis this distinction as a “distinction” (Although there was a thread here regarding calling Shabbos Lunch “lunch” as opposed to a seudah, but I diress)

    in reply to: Do MO believe in non-strawman daas Torah? #1155827
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Popa

    You are not the first person Ive heard this “distinction” between a prenup and kesuba from.

    A real distinction would be the nature of the people behind the two obviuosuly ORa or whomever cant be comapred to chazal.

    I’m not sure what you mean by “overheard” Here is a factual example I personally heard from a prominent Rav, he mentioned during the brain-detah hulabaloo a few years back that no person who lacked pulse and wasnt breathing ever survives and thus “Cardiac death” is final as aopposed to brain death. I told him this is simply incorrect as CPR revives people from “cardiac Death” Literaly daily (more than that actualy) He refused to beleive me. I asked a friend who was in the shiur what he thought of that he said I cant argue with Daas Torah. I’m sorry but this is nonesense. If you’d like I can provide others but I dont want to hijack this thread more than I have.

    DY

    so if a few lines were added to the prenup regarding the marital obligations it would bethe same as a kesuba? That is easy to fix

    in reply to: Do MO believe in non-strawman daas Torah? #1155824
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Popa

    “Maybe you should sometimes consider that something can be true and that you are just too stupid or ignorant to understand it”

    1) that is unlikely

    2) just in case it was the case I did I asked for clarification

    3) I was not just referring to this example. I run in daas torah circles both of the “strawman” variety and your variety it is not uncommon to hear absolute nonsense or things that are counter-factual asserted as true because “daas torah” said so

    in reply to: Do MO believe in non-strawman daas Torah? #1155808
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    “Quite a negative thought to start a marriage with”

    granted

    Though more negative than the thought of the couple getting divorced and him being so spiteful that he just kicks her out on the street with no food or money? (keep in mind he gets to keep anything she earns during marriage, if not for the kesuba a divorced woman would be penniless. The KEsuba comes along and provides her even if the husband (or his yorshim presumably the children they may have together!) are to cheap to provide for her.

    “In other words, it’s not designed to deliniate the … post marital obligations as a kesubah is”

    It absolutely is! it is designed to get the wife her get once the marriage is over.

    “One can argue that the benefits, preventing the malicious actions, outweigh this negative”

    That isnt realy what we are talking about. I am strictly using this example to point out how based on “Daas Torah” people accept all sorts of (non-halachic, barely even hashkafic) nonsense simply because somebody chashuv said so

    in reply to: Do MO believe in non-strawman daas Torah? #1155806
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Popa youv’e been tricked.

    As I understand it (and it is quite possible that I am mistaken) the prenup is designed to help an already “divorced” woman (i.e. divorced in the legal sense or practical sense)get her get and allow her to remarry. It doesnt make it easier for her to get divorced, it makes it easier for her to get a get, (no these are not synonyms)when she is already divorced (in a legal/practical sense).

    Is this not the case?

    in reply to: Do MO believe in non-strawman daas Torah? #1155805
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY I absolutly would try to understand!

    Just as in this case In spite of it sounding foolish, I did not dismiss it I asked Popa to ellaborate see here: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/do-mo-believe-in-non-strawman-daas-torah#post-567740

    “Yes, that is part of daas Torah, accepting, just as we do in halachic matters, that something may be true despite our not understanding it. “

    So we agree! though this is further than the conventional understanding of Daas Torah because I think Popa actually beleives it it isnt merely saying “that doesnt sound accurate but I am mevatel my Daas” this is a step further.

    in reply to: Do MO believe in non-strawman daas Torah? #1155799
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Gavra

    Well said, my first reaction was like you, though I asked Popa directly to clarify.

    To me it sounded like another facet of daas torah namely accepting anything from a rosh yeshiva wether it makes sense or not.

    The idea that a kesuba which provideds for a woman in the event of divorce stregthens marriage while a prenup which allows a “divorced” (i.e. civilly or practicly) woman to remarry weakens marriage is not something anybody rational would accept. But if the “rosh Yeshiva” said it it becomes Torah misiani.

    again though to be fair, perhaps it makes sense but requires further explanation

    in reply to: Do MO believe in non-strawman daas Torah? #1155781
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Popa

    I know many many people who believe in what you describe as

    “straw man” daas Torah. No they do do not it just as advice. Granted this “straw man” which some do believe in is extended to many such as yourself who do not believe it but, it is a real belief. Especially among Chasidim, but it has spread to non-chasidim as well.

    I also do’nt understand your distinction between KEsuba and prenup regarding the problem to “plan for divorce before you are married” would you be able to elaborate?

    in reply to: Internet the yetzer horo??? #1074030
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    1)No

    2)Everything in life is a tool used by both etzer Hara and Tov

    in reply to: Weddings during Sefirah #1073886
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    The issur of listening to music is not as clear cut as you seem to think. The Mechaber/Rema only mention avoiding Chasunahs and haircuts. The M”B says regarding dancing for reshus “yesh lizaher”

    I do agree with the OP as I remeber a time when no Ashkenazim made chasunahs during sefira at all in accordance with the Taz. I am not sure why it changed, maybe due to population growth?

    in reply to: New Haskamah for KosherSwitch� #1073808
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Sam the letter I saw from R’ chaim Shapiro seemed legitamte too.

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075273
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Feivel

    Nowhere did I judge the gedolim’s motives nor abilities nor agdlus.

    If you dont have a view. Why are you hocking ah cheinek?

    you say “I have no interest in the process with which a Kol Koreh comes to be. ” I do, I am fascinated by this sort of thing

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075269
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Feivel

    is he hard to get to? He hasn’t eluded discovery many know or at least suspect who one of them is.

    At any rate. Now it has a life of its own. The campaign has been a resounding success (not that this is a bad thing).

    I’m curious though, in your view (and Joseph’s) Do you believe all four poskim were mechaven to the same nusach and coincidentally sent it to the printer at the same time, and then he decided to save paper and put all four signatures on the same sign?

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075259
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Dy

    was that to me? It sounds like melacha mamesh to me according to most shitos. I don’t understand Rabbi Oelbaum and those who mattir it mitzad melacha, I read through their literature and the teshuvos on the subject, and am very not convinced.

    however that does not change, the clear campaign being launched, kol korehs do not spontaneously appear this quickly as you note above. I am curious if you see it too

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075256
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    DY

    I never said it was difficult to organize, it is a lot of work though in VERY little time. This does take organization.

    At any rate, I am curious as to your view, do you think there was an organized campaign being launched against kosher switch?

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075253
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Feivel

    ” but I’m also sure you can understand that most of us reject that view.”

    I really can’t. Getting a kol koreh signed by 7 Gedolim across several states, not to mention articles in the leading Frum periodicals. all withinn one week of the newest Kosher switch launch takes organization. (The Youtube video was released April 13, this very thread is a week old) takes organization.

    I’m sure a few naive people think Gedolim facetime each other new youtube videos they come across and then type up kol korehs that they forward each other, but I doubt “most” people think that way.

    I don’t think I’m saying anything controversial. All I said in the post that Joseph attacked was “in spite of the full scare war being waged against it there are Rabbanim who hold there is no melacha involved “

    Joseph understood this as “So in your opinion “those rabbis” like Rav Feinstein, Rav Kaminetzky, Rav Belsky, Rav Miller, etc. are just “scare mongerers” trying to scare away Jews from following other rabbis who permit?” I do find it telling that Joseph immediately went that way, but it was not me who said that

    in reply to: I think I may have Tz'raas… #1073735
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    thanks PAA

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075251
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    This argument is detracting from any real duscussion and doesnt really have a practical ramification.

    Can we agree that there is an organized campaign being launched against kosher switch?

    Note: I did not say anything about motive, whether the campaign is right.or wrong, tactics used or “manipulation”

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075249
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    A. Yes

    B. You keep saying manipulated I never saud that

    C. If its true why shouldnt he sign, regardless of the nature of those presenting it?

    D. I am sure that they arent leshem shomaim but I cant prove it. So this point is debatable.

    E. Not neccesarily are you confusing rav fovid with a pope chas vesholom? You should listen to your rav and if he feels ill equiped he will hopefly direct you to somone who ios, possibly rav dovid.

    F. Not at all as ive said repeatedly.

    You are setting.up.straw men and arguing against them all of which.is aside the main pont namely that there are some who allow it.

    Points b through.f as you stated them are not my points, they are straw men set up by you.

    (I havent discussed kosher switch with rav dovid)

    in reply to: KOSHER-SWITCH #1075246
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph

    That what I describe happens is EXACTLY what happens I am close to R dovid shlita and have discussed this with him several times. I also know some troublemakers. The only question is if the troublemakers mean well.

    At any rate this is a side issue that doesnt really change the subject at hand. Since bottom line is although there clearly is a campaign against the kosher switch that obviously doesnt automatically make it ok.

    in reply to: I think I may have Tz'raas… #1073728
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Whats his mekor that tzaras can only occur in Israel?

    Miriam had Tzaras in the midbar

Viewing 50 posts - 4,651 through 4,700 (of 5,405 total)