volvie

Never was, never will be. Not in New York, and not anywhere. You have to choose from the lesser of two evils. Cuomo is by far the greater evil.

SBH: Perhaps you takke shouldn’t be here? 😉

You misunderstood. That new law, effective Jan. 1, ’11, affects naturalizing as a Hungarian citizen. IOW, if someone isn’t already a citizen, if they shtam from any of the “Greater Hungary” (i.e. Pre-Trianon/WWI, when Hungary was reduced to one third of its original size) areas, where the people lost their Hungarian citizenship under the Trianon Treaty and acquired citizenship of the newly formed states (i.e. Czechoslovakia, Poland, the added areas of Romania, and parts of Yugoslavia), those people can now acquire Hungarian citizenship through the new law you referenced, without having to travel or move to Hungary. Some of the areas affected include Satmar, Munkatch, Ungvar, etc.

People who shtam from the parts of Hungary that are still part of modern day Hungary (i.e. Budapest, Debrecin, etc.) never lost their citizenship. And since Hungarian law grants citizenship to anyone’s who’s father (and by extension father’s father, etc.) was a citizen [and since 1951 to anyone who’s mother was a citizen], therefore they are and always have been citizens. And they can simply claim a passport under their status as a citizen. And they don’t need to know a word of Hungarian.

WIY: Czech was originally part of Austria, not Hungary (although both were part of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire). Slovakia was part of Hungary. This is all pre-Trianon Treaty (i.e. pre-WWI.) Between the wars, both Czech and Slovakia were part of Czechoslovakia. I suspect the area you are referring to is in the Subcarpathian Rus, which was part of Czechoslovakia between the World Wars and became part of the Soviet Union after WWII, and is now part of Ukraine. It was a heavily Orthodox Jewish/Chasidic region of Europe. And it too was part of Hungary pre-WWI.

What city are they from?

Uncle Dezei is Dezei Batchi. (Dezei is his name.)

Rav Belsky shlita is a large posek and would be a good place to start.

Wouldn’t it be simpler for it to just say confused?

yitayningwut –

Regarding your claims (i.e. it is permissible for you (!) or your rebbeim to argue with a Tanna or Amora)… Surely you are aware that each generation (i.e. Tannaim, Amoroim, Rishonim, Achonim) could not argue with an earlier generation category (i.e. an Achron can’t argue on a Rishon)! This is a basic fundamental point. Otherwise why the whole idea of diffenret generational categories?? I don’t see how you can make the claims you are asserting earlier in the thread. Even an Amora cannot argue on a Tanna. And you claim YOU [or even your rebbeim] can!?

The Gemara will often attempt to disprove the statement of an Amora from a Mishnah, Beraisa, or Tosefta. If no other Tana is known to share the opinion of the Amora, the Gemara will either explain the statement of either the Tana or Amora in such a way that they are not contradictory, or it will conclude that the opinion of the Amora has been disproved.

One of the rules upon which Talmudic discussion is based is that the words of the amora’im must always be in agreement with the teachings of the tanna’im. Thus, one of the most common questions found in the Gemara is “meisivei” – which brings a tanna’itic source like a Mishnah, baraisa or tosefta that seems to contradict the words of the amora. In his defense, the amora will have to explain how the statement of the tanna can be understood as being in agreement with his own, or else show that there is another tanna with whom the amora agrees. If the amora cannot reconcile his statement with the teaching of the tanna’im, the Gemara will conclude “teyuvta” – the statement is disproved.

The Mechaber in Kesef Mishna, Hilchos Mamrim 2:1 writes:

Amorim can’t dispute Tannaim, and later generations can’t dispute Amorim because the Amorim accepted the authority of the Tannaim, and the later generations accepted the authority of the Tannaim.

The Chazon Ish says that such acceptance is an acknowledgement that the earlier generations are more correct since they are wiser and closer to Sinai. (Chazon Ish, Letters 2:24) And the Maharal (Beer Hagolah 6) says that the Amoraim recognized their inferior state in relationship to the Tannaim and therefore didn’t argue with them.

In Choshen Mishpat, siman 25, there is a lengthy discussion concerning to’eh bid’var mishna. While the general thrust of the halacha concerns dayanim and situations where their piskey din can be overturned, it does shed light on our issue as well, since the assumption about a d’var mishna is that it is something than we (at whatever generation the reader find himself) may not argue against.

Mishna and gemara are accepted by all to be d’var mishna – meaning explicit piskey din in these texts ( dinim hamefurashim ). The Mechaber adds divrey haposkim. The Nos’ey Keylim have differing views as to what constitutes “haposkim”. The Mechaber, for obvious reasons, did not include himself; however, later authorities do include him. For B’ney Ashkenaz, the Rama is included. Later authorities add the Shach and S’ma.

What we see from all of this, and the nos’ey keylim as well, is that there are many areas where we do not accept disagreement, and if someone does disagree, that position is rejected.

However, we also see, that in areas where there is no clear consensus, one has latitude to disagree.

One last point: There is a discussion in the Rama about an unresolved machlokes and how to decide. Rama says that one may not choose to follow the “katan” against the “gadol”, rather follow the one who is “gadol b’chochma u-b’minyan”, with minyan defined as the one who has the most followers ( see S’ma 18 ).

And of course do not forget what Rav Zera says in the name of Rava bar Zimona in Shabbos 112b.

charlie: Finland is by far the exception to the rule.

Bush Jr. was one of the best U.S. President’s, even without consideration of his almost unprecedented strong pro-Israel administration.

anon: The Iran-Iraq war ended long before the 2003 Iraqi War. Ending Saddam Hussein’s rule over Iraq was absolutely the correct, proper, and timely thing for the United States to do. (Even if 9/11 never happened. Don’t forget how many times the U.S. came close to war with Iraq under the Clinton Administration — which at the end of the day didn’t have the necessary resolve to take on Saddam’s repeated provocations.)

Truman and Nixon were the presidents who helped Israel at the time it was in the greatest danger. Ironically, they were both anti-Semites personally.

ICOT: Which brings up an interesting, and pertinent, side-point. You can never trust a nochri no matter how good a “friend” he is. In front of you they’ll be your buddy buddy, but when the chips are down (and behind the doors of their private clubs) don’t count on them. We saw this vividly during the holocaust when our Polish and German and Slovakian (etc.) “friends” and “neighbors” suddenly turned on us and joined hand-in-hand with the “German enemy” (in the case of the Poland, Slovakia, Ukraine, and Croatia) to liquidate and annihilate the Jews. When the opportunity to kill the Jews presents itself, we have very few “friends” indeed.

(Sure there were notable exceptions, but the population at large was largely in cahoots or at most indifferent to the Nazi’s final solution. And this includes the population of German-occupied countries. The Nazis never had any trouble finding quislings amongst the occupied locals when it came to killing Jews.)

“One can argue that the fact remains that the stam store-owner is afraid to violate the law, and even if you find exceptions to the rule, halachically you don’t have to worry about it because in halacha we never say you need to be absolutely sure, only reasonably sure, especially with an issur d’rabbanan, and that much we are.”

yitayningwut –

Being that Akum have no ne’emanus halachicly, on what halachic basis can you assume “reasonably sure” is sufficient?

“Who Says? Rav Moshe Feinstein, the Posek Hador says.”

cherrybim –

Rav Bick ZTL, Rav Henkin ZTL and others all disagreed with Rav Moshe on many occasion, and they were entitled. But unless you are qualified to agree with one psak over another, and in the base sense of a prevailing halachic behavior in your family or community, you should follow whoever is the bigger posek (or poskim), and that often would mean Rav Moshe. However, that having been said, there is no such Halachic status as “Posek Hador”. Rav Moshe ZTL was great beyond great, but there is no reason to consider his psakim more authoratative than let’s say Rav Aharon Kotler or the Chazon Ish. There would be no reason, let’s say, to follow Rav Moshe’s shiurim for the Pesach seder than those of the Chazon Ish. In fact, Roshei Yeshiva and Poskim, such as Rav Hutner, Rav Eli Meyer Bloch of Telz, the Debreciner Rav, the Chelkas Yaakov and others, sided with the Satmar Rebbe over Rav Moshe regarding the obligatory size of a mechitzah in a shul, and/or the permissibility of artificial insemination, which were the two big disagreements that those Gedoim had in halachah. It was indeed Rav Hutner who approached the Satmar Rav asking him to write a refutation to Rav Moshe’s psak about the Mechitzos. You will not find the phrse “posek hador” anywhere in any meaningful way. The Tzitz Eliezer uses it all over the place in his titles, and, I believe, either the Teshuvos Maharshal writes it among the titles to the Ramah, or the Teshuvos Ramah about the Maharshal. But in any case, the title connotes no halachic status.

Unfortunately, many of those who use Rav Moshe’s psakim do so only when he is maikel. He permitted Cholov Stam (only b’shas hadchak – though they don’t pay attention to that part of the psak); he lowered the height of the Mechitzos — psakim such as these made life much easier for the Modern Orthodox, and even the out-of-town Orthodox communities. They believe they need Rav Moshe’s psakim to facilitate their mission as Modern Orthodox rabbis, or to be able to cater to the not-so-frum and do Kiruv. That is not a bad thing. A psak is a psak. However, when the same Rav Moshe prohibits Shabbos clocks (in most cases), or prohibits going to college, or paskens unequivocally that boys are prohibited m’doraisa to be “just friends” with girls, the same rabbonim with “Rav Moshe’s mechotzos” and cholov stam suddenly rely on “other poskim” (though in the case of boys being friends with girls, there are no poskim of anywhere near that stature who disagree with Rav Moshe). Part of it is due, too, to the fact that, at least in America, the other two personalities who were considered Gedolei Hador of that caliber were Rav Aharon Kotler and the Satmar Rav ZTL. Because of Rav Aharon’s stance on college and secularism in general, and the Satmar Rav’s stance on Zionism, there was no way in the world that those two Torah giants were going to be considered authoratative in what constituted the Orthodox community in America in those days. Instead, Rav Aharon was largley ignored, as it was predicted the followers of his hashkafa would become “mere tourist attractions” (thats a quote from Rav Y.B. Soloveichik in his “Five Addresses” about who he refers to as “separatist Orthodox”. Rav Aharon was the leader of that Hashkafa), and the Satmar Rav was passed off as extreme by these people. In other words, it was “safe” for people to accept Rav Moshe and ONLY Rav Moshe because once you accept someone’s psakim in hilchos shabbos and kashrus, for example, you are forced to at least think about considering the fact that their stance against college or Zionism comes with as least as much authority. Of course, Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT”L deserved all the honor and respect that he received. He was a Gaon among Geonim and a Tzadik among Tzadikim, and one of the great Halachic authorities of our times. Thats not the issue. The issue is the fact that people pick and choose which Gaon-among-Geonim to follow when and because it is comfortable for them to do so.

The Gedolim in the days of the Shulchan Aruch and shortly thereafter have agreed to accept the psakim of the mechaber (and the Rema) as authoritative. The Shach writes that one cannot even claim “kim li” against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. This is akin to accepting someone as your “Rebbi”, where you follow his psakim. This is the same thing that happened when, let’s say, Klal Yisroel decided that the period of Chazal has ended after the 7th generation of Amorayim (Mar Zutra, Mar bar Rav Ashi, etc), and nobody from here on in can add to the Gemora. There was no “halachah lmoshe misinai” that told us that the Gemora was sealed; it was the accepted reality told to us by our Gedolim. The same thing applies to accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.

Rav Moshe’s heter is that it is possible that American milk is not cholov stam but cholov yisroel. If you hold that it is permitted, you don’t need a heter. CY is not a chumrah, it is a l’chatchilah, and there is a big difference.

The Gezeirah was that a Jew has to supervise the milk, not that you have to have some kind of insurance that it is Kosher. Rav Moshe’s heter – however far one takes it – is to interpret the Gezeirah that any kind of insurance is sufficient to fulfill Chazal’s gezeirah, which would make American milk cholov yisroel. But that itself is a matter of interpretation. If the Gezeirah was simply that you need a Jew supervising the milk, then even Rav Moshe would concede that even if you have reason to be comfortable that the milk is kosher, you still did not fulfill the gezeirah. In addition, even if you will accept Rav Moshe’s interpretation that the gezeirah is only that you need insurance not specifically Jewish supervision, who says that the laws are sufficient insurance that would satisfy Chazal? If the legal penalty for violaitng the government’s milk laws is a fine, but the company will make more profit by violating the law, then how do we know that law is insurance? Very very often stores violate the Kosher Consumer laws. They put treif meat in the Kosher section etc, and they get fines that do not deter them from being repeat offenders. Then there is the question as to who says the laws are being honestly enforced? As a certain godol said about the heter of the inspectors: “You give me two hundred dollars and I’ll give you four inspectors.” What halachic basis is there to believe the inspectors are doing their jobs, being that Akum have no ne’emanus halachicly?

But the machlokes is if what is referred to as “Cholov Stam” is in fact Cholov Yisroel or not. If Cholov Stam is halachicly Cholov Yisroel then it is kosher. If Cholov Stam is halachicly not Cholov Yisroel then it is not kosher.

There is no solution that most people are looking for. Any way you slice and dice it, at the end of the day the rich will subsidize the poor. That fact will not change.

No tax system in the world charges a flat tax (i.e. $8,000) per person. (Even the Steve Forbes style proposed “flat tax” is based upon a percentage of income.) Like taxes, the Yeshiva tuition system is also based on need. The Jewish community (in Europe, etc.), when it had authority to tax Jews (which is where Jewish schooling was funded from), always taxed based upon ability — not a flat figure.

This will not change regardless of any amount of discussion. If anyone were to propose the IRS start charging per person or per family regardless of income, there idea would (rightfully) never be given the light of day or taken seriously by people.

I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt a single word d a stated. In fact, d a’s description fits in very well with Rabbi Miller’s teachings and gadlus.

You also have provided no corroboration of your stated or implied description of Rabbis Cohen, Goren, and Sacks opposing eating meat because they held it was wrong to eat meat for a reason other than health or enjoyment. (d a’s description stated Rabbi Miller only opposed the practice of vegetarianism when accompanied with the belief that eating meat is wrong.)

Additionally both Rabbis Goren and Sacks were never considered to be amongst the Gedolim and in fact have taken controversial stances condemned by the Gedolim. (Rabbi Goren was vehemently opposed by the Gedolim for his controversial positions on mamzeirim amongst other things, and Rabbi Sacks for his endorsement of pure relativism between religions, and that Judaism is not the sole true religion i.e. “No one creed has a monopoly on spiritual truth.”)

Nothing of the sort. It’s a get off the rest of the year scot-free card. And I mean in practice not in theory.

And please find me one Godol who is verifiably on the record in support of “Mother’s Day”. Then I’ll find you 25 or more who support loshon hora free hours.

SJS – I’m telling you the intentions (and I’m sure it helps for many if not all) and you’re telling me the results of some.

I’m not conducting any sociological studies and don’t really care to analyze why the lack of parental respect exists in society. Nor is that my point.

My point is about us Yidden. We have a Torah. Our Torah and Chazal tells us when our holidays are. Mother’s Day isn’t one of them. Yom Kippur is.

Kibud Av V’Eim is our motto.

“Assuming they ignore their mother 364 days a year, why would the existence of a holiday in a country where such things are not compulsary make them think that?”

It may give them that excuse the other 364 days. Hey mom, you have your day — and it ain’t today.

But this is a side point. My point isn’t whether it is appropo or not for gentiles. My point is about us Jews.

“So what”?!

Herein lies our differences.

The Torah gives us 354 days of teshuva, not *just* Yom Kippur.

The Torah gives us 354 days of teshuva, not *just* Yom Kippur. The Torah gives us one special day of teshuva – Yom Kippur. The Torah gives us 354 days of Kibud Av V’Eim, not *just* “Mother’s Day”. The Torah does *not* give us one special day of Kibud Av V’Eim.

The Torah gives us 365 (okay 354) “Mother’s Days.” To have just one, is to discard the rest. The one day a year for this is not assigned by the Torah.

Maybe the next holiday Congress will institute is a “Do Not Steal Day”. This way the people of the country will have one day a year to show respect for the rule of law. It makes about as much sense as a “Mother’s Day.”

Why do you limit yourself to one day a year, when our Torah HaKedosha gives us 365 days a year for this purpose? You are throwing out 364 possibilities a year.

“Piggybacking on Yom Tov or Shabbos”? I enthusiastically say yes. Spend all your cash on Mom and Wife these special days.

Not being the expert of gentile holidays (thankfully), I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks. Change my comment from Mardi Gras day to Groundhog Day. (That isn’t pagan or religious, is it?)

It is a mitzvah of Kibud Em to give her a gift any day. No more or less on her birthday. (Erev Yom Tov though would be very appropriate and probably an extra mitzvah in itself.)