Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What if one set, G-d forbid, gets into a nasty divorce? That would leave a sticky family situation with another set remaining married.
So what?
In most situations, it’s usually a case where one brother marries one sister and then, later on, the other pair meet and decide to marry.
So, if you’re in the first pair to get married, such a thought never enters your mind. And if you’re in the second pair, are you going to not get married because you or the other pair might get divorced?
The Wolf
Obama’s not going to notice your one vote. As long as you’re resigned to your vote not meaning anything, you might as well vote as you want.
The Wolf
Wolfish, but you know what happened to them, Nebach.
Well, the whole concept of yibum only comes into play when someone dies, so of course the examples are going to deal with such situations. And, if it’s a straightforward case, there would be nothing to learn.
The Wolf
on Shabbos Mincha we are Maftir from Kesuvim.
You lost me on this one. Normally there is no Maftir on Shabbos afternoon (except in the event that it is Yom Kippur — and then we lain from Navi, not Kesuvim). In fact, the Haftorah NEVER comes from Kesuvim.
The Wolf
The Mishna in Yevamos is full of examples and scenarios where two brothers marrying two sisters.
The Wolf
Wolf – try imagining what it feels like by the Amud.
Actually, I think about that all the time.
Not that anyone’s asked me to daven for the amud on RH/YK, but if they did, the primary reason I would have to turn them down is because I don’t think I can stand with my feet together for that long.
The Wolf
Another interested party. I hope you don’t mind, WIY, if I listen in…
For me, the issue isn’t standing, per se…. I can stand for an hour at Ne’ilah without problem. But standing *with my feet together* in those shoes… well, after about three minutes, I’m already in pain.
The Wolf
As a rule, after a fast, I eat a small meal, slowly with a fair amount of liquid (including water).
Then I go away from the table for an hour or two. After the initial meal has had a chance to digest, I go back for a second meal.
I can’t guarantee that this will work for you, but it does for me.
The Wolf
I think you might be a bit confused. All five megillos are in Kesuvim. They are:
Koheles
Rus
Shir HaShirim
Eicha
Esther.
Yonah is in Navi because, well, Yonah was a prophet and had a prophetic message.
The Wolf
We already know NY state will go to Obama. So why bother voting for Romney?
You’re right that your vote for Romney will not really matter. But the Presidential race isn’t the only one on the ballot. There are other races where your vote may well count for more.
And, there’s shein’s reason above.
The Wolf
The most important part is to say the 13 middos with the tzibbur, regardless of where you are holding.
The Wolf
I also eat dates so that I’ll have a lot of dates. 🙂
The Wolf
What is your reasoning for thinking that it might be prohibited?
The Wolf
You can only go apple picking if you are using the apples for 2nd days (at least per my Rav).
I’m certain it would also be permitted if you used them during Chol HaMoed too (and certainly if you’re going to use them that day itself).
The Wolf
If the cat has an owner then you are being Mazik someone’s property.
The same could be said about a bug.
You can ask the question of whether or not you can safely assume that a bug is ownerless, but if it does have one, you are certainly being Mazik someone’s property by killing it.
The Wolf
Also as a side note the splitting 50/50 is also a horrible idea
Well, it all depends. As it turns out, my wife and I come from similar backgrounds, so it wasn’t much of an issue.
If one side wants significantly more than the other, then they have to work out the differences. But you can’t make a blanket statement that “splitting 50/50 is a horrible idea.” In my case, it worked out fine, as, I’d be willing to wager, it would more often than not.
The Wolf
Is there any heter for a Jew to accept a judgeship on a secular court where he will have cases consisting of two Jewish litigants where he will have to rule based upon secular law, even when it is in contravention with Jewish law?
Can’t judges recuse themselves from cases?
The Wolf
Nobody or anything touched the moon. They get there and float around but nobody touches the moon.
Sure they do. There are plenty of man-made objects on the moon right now, as we speak.
There’s no gravity.
Of course there’s gravity. It’s 1/6 the gravity of Earth. Sure, it’s easier to move around, but by no means will anything solid “float” above the surface of the moon.
The Wolf
Two eye-witnesses who are thoroughly vetted by Beis Din so that their stories exactly match, before their testimony is accepted, is required in a criminal case.
I’m not disputing that.
But DNA can be used by courts in different ways. For example, DNA evidence can be used to show that the witnesses are liars, even if their stories exactly match.
In addition, not every case is a criminal case.
The Wolf
a)Unlike the Ashkenazi community where the Kallahs side pays for the most of the wedding, by Bucharians (& most other Sefardi sects) the bill is cut into 50/50
I didn’t know my parents or my wife’s parents were Bucharian…. 🙂
The Wolf
Wolf: You agree that science admits dna evidence is not 100% proof it is the person it matched, correct?
If you have a clone or an identical twin, then certainly it’s not (although it could be argued that if you find a leg and the person has an identical twin, and the twin is standing right in front of you with two legs, that you could probably consider it a match).
According to the FBI, the odds of an unrelated person having the same DNA as you is 1 in 100 billion — which is currently about 15 times the population of the Earth — and that number depends on the number of sites on the DNA strand you inspect. If you inspect more sites, the odds of finding a match drop even more.
Granted, it’s not 100% — but then again, neither are the traditionally accepted methods either. The odds of a mistaken identification by an eyewitness (which *is* universally regarded as acceptable) are far greater than 1 in 100 billion.
The Wolf
But technically it’s Assur to charge for teaching no matter what.
So, if someone tells me that they won’t use me unless I agree to accept payment (and, yes, that has happened), are they transgressing “lifnei iver?”
The Wolf
DNA is never 100% proof. Science admits there is (something like) a 1 in 100 million chance it belongs to someone else with an exact same dna sequence.
No. That’s incorrect.
The only people who will have identical DNA to you are your identical twin or your clone. No one else will ever have identical DNA to you.
Part of your DNA IS your fingerprint…..
That is incorrect. Fingerprints have nothing to do with DNA. In fact, identical twins, who have the same DNA, have different fingerprints.
The Wolf
Before anyone can give you some reasonable advice, you have to answer this very important question:
How old are the kids?
The Wolf
This is one of those types of questions that I don’t worry about.
As long as your acknowledging that HKBH will raise the dead — including re-creating bodies that have long since turned to dust — I’m sure He’ll think of the details regarding clothing.
The Wolf
You’re wrong. I have thought of it. And I doubt I’m the only one.
The Wolf
I always understood this answer to mean that Chazal was wrong, and Al Pi Teva of their time they should have made the other Halachic choice, but none the less Halachicly they are right. This is because Hashem makes/changes the Teva in an unnoticable way (that we do not understand) so that the Teva will follow the P’sak of Chazal.
I’m not sure I followed what you were saying, exactly.
The Wolf
However, loads of moon rock were brought back for public viewing and touching.
In their defense, I suppose you could argue that once it’s separated from the moon, it’s no longer “moon,” much the same way that dirt separated from Eretz Yisroel is no longer considered part of Eretz Yisroel (i.e. foods grown in such dirt are not subject to tevel restrictions, etc.).
The Wolf
5) Chazal and science are talking about two different aspects.
Ah, yes, the famous “lice come from eggs but they don’t *really* come from eggs” answer.
The Wolf
Well, the Rambam held that the moon was not a physical entity, so if someone wanted to defend that position, he would have to say the whole thing was a hoax.
Forget the moon landings… that would have to mean that all the other moon missions that landed on the moon (i.e. the unmanned ones) as well as those in lunar orbit are ALL fakes (since you can’t land an object on a non-physical entity and the data the orbiters are gathering would obviously be false).
In addition, I don’t believe the Rambam’s statements are limited to the moon, but to all heavenly bodies (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). So the Mars rovers, the Voyager and Pioneer missions, the Cassini mission and on and on would have to be faked as well.
Thus we’re left with a number of possibilities:
1. The Rambam was wrong on this.
2. The entire enterprise of space exploration is a hoax, covering multiple nations in direct competition with each other and who would have loved to be able to prove the other side was faking an accomplishment (think back to the US/USSR space race)
3. The Rambam is not speaking b’pashtus.
4. Fill in your own possibility here.
I’ll leave it to you to decide which is the case.
The Wolf
Anyone have an answer as to why he said this?
Why do you want us to answer why someone believes in something that is counterfactual?
The Wolf
I got out of the subway at Chambers Street right after the second plane hit. I was at work (well, I was in the building — I can’t really say we were doing any work) on Park Row when the buildings fell.
I can still remember the sights, sounds and smells of the day. I especially remember watching, after the towers fell, the clouds of dust and debris rolling down Vesey St. towards my building. I was on the seventh floor of a building that day, but the cloud engulfed us.
The Wolf
When I teach laining, I usually let them pay me whatever they want. But that’s only because I’m very unassertive and don’t feel very confident in charging for my services.
It also helps that I enjoy private teaching and am usually willing to do it for free anyway, so if I don’t get paid, it’s not a huge deal.
I understand this may not apply to your situation.
The Wolf
Unique,
First of all, welcome back! It’s wonderful that you want to be chozer b’teshuva.
My advice to you is very simple: Find a rabbi with whom you can “connect” and whom you feel is right for you. He will guide you on your journey.
Good luck and wishing you a K’siva V’chasima Tova!
The Wolf
No “proof” is undebatable.
I would think that, by definition, a proof *must* be debatable (or, at the very least, defensible). Otherwise, it’s just an assertion.
The Wolf
My proof is that everything within the Torah is brilliant. All the mitzvot make such beautiful, perfect sense. I know with certanity that if I managed to keep all the mitzvot perfectly and I lived in a society that did as well, I would live the absolute happiest life possible.
I went off for a few years because the BY education I was given would twist and manipulate the Torah using this random perush and skipping that concept to make it more fluffy and appealing. I came back because I discovered the Torah in it’s naked truth and I recognize that there is nothing more genius than the Torah.
That is not proof.
Don’t get me wrong — if you believe the perfection of the mitzvos gives you greater spritual fulfillment and a greater kesher to HKBH — that’s beautiful — all the more power to you. That’s a wonderful thing and halevai more people should feel as you do. But it’s not a proof that the Torah is Min HaShamayim.
The Wolf
how can you say that? what then do you call proof? a picture from a camera? A video? is that the only “proof” for you?
Did I say any such thing? While a video would be nice, it’s far from the only form of evidence available. Logical proofs are also acceptable — but I’ve yet to find one that stands up.
why can’t you use logic, and your brain to assess a situation such as Ma’amid Har Sinai which was given in front of 3,000,000 people, to be iron-clad proof enough for you??? It boggles my mind! Here you have 3 million witnesses to G-d’s revelation and they all pass this down to their children. Does this not stand up high enough for “intellectual scrutiny”??? 3 million witnesses…..
what WOULD be “proof” according to you? what would YOU say that would be undisputable evidence? I can not provide proof to you, if you do not DEFINE what YOU consider to be proof.
Very simple answer — from whence do you know that 3 million people stood at Har Sinai? The answer, of course, is the Torah. You cannot use the Torah as proof of the Torah’s claims.
Personally, I’m a bit puzzled myself. I never understood why people *need* ironclad evidence for Torah Min HaShamayim. I certainly don’t. I believe it — period.
It’s really very simple — if you tell me that you believe for some non-evidentiary reason, then I have no argument with you. If you say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, despite a lack of evidence, then I have no argument. I may think you’re wrong, but that’s just my opinion.
Once, however, you start insisting that you have proof to the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, then I’m going to call you on it and demand that the proof actually be, well, provable.
The Wolf
(edited to add missing em tags)
But which human could have made predictions about list of non kosher animals, birds, and all the fish who have scales must have fins?
I blogged about some of these points as well.
I’m assuming your referring to the “proof” of the four non-kosher animals with only one kosher sign and the proof fins and scales. I’m not aware of any proof involving kosher/non-kosher birds — if there is one, please present it.
As to the rebuttal of this proof, I’ll simply quote what I wrote two years ago. The argument deals with the fins/scales proof, but it applies just as equally to the four animals proof.
This time, the author brings a Gemara in Niddah which tells us that all fish that have scales also have fins. Only a Divine Being, the argument tells us, with knowledge of every fish species in the world could possibly have made such a statement. After all, the ancients certainly didn’t know of every species of fish on their own. Heck, we’re still discovering new species of fish today. Hence, such a definitive statement could only have come from an all-knowing God. No non-omniscient man could possibly have made such a statement.
To the best of my knowledge, the statement is correct. Although I am not a marine biologist, I am not aware of any species of fish that has a fin but no scales. Pretty convincing, no?
Again, however, the author is making the leap from asserting that if one statement of the Torah is true, it must all be true. There is simply no basis for such an assertion. As with the period of the moon, the *most* that it can prove is that God told the ancients secrets of marine biology that they could not have otherwise known.
But it doesn’t even prove that. This is yet another case of begging-the-question and assuming that a Divine authorship before proving it. To illustrate, let me give you an example. I’m going to make a statement right now: Every star (barring collapsed, dead stars) conducts nuclear fusion in it’s core. Now, fast forward 1000 years, a million years or even a billion years and suppose we find that, indeed, every star that they’ve ever found fuses atoms in its core. Does the fact that I made that successful prediction make me Divine? After all, I certainly didn’t examine every star in the universe. How could I possibly know that there are no stars that don’t fuse atoms?
The answer, of course, is that I simply extrapolated from what I do know and made a general rule. Since I know that every star we’ve found so far fuses atoms, it’s not too hard to make a rule that all stars conduct nuclear fusion. Similarly, an ancient, examining the fish around him, could easily notice that every fish that has scales also has fins and make such a rule.
“Ah, ” the true believer will counter, “but wouldn’t he be afraid of being caught? Wouldn’t he be afraid to make such a statement if there was even a possibility that someone in the future might disprove him? Surely someone making such a statement would have to be 100% sure, or else face the possibility of being disproven.”
This, however, is another example of begging the question. The believer is assuming that the person making the statement would be afraid of “being caught.” But is that the only possibility? Perhaps he wasn’t concerned about being incorrect. Perhaps he simply thought he was correct just as I think I am about stars. Perhaps he was simply making a general rule without regard for exceptions. In short, you can’t prove that this statement came from a Divine source and you certainly can’t prove from this that the entire Torah is Divine in origin
As to your last statement:
Or make such claims as shmita.
I’m assuming your argument goes something like this: Only a Divine Being could make a promise that you won’t starve if you don’t plant crops for a year. And, furthermore, if the Torah were written by man, wouldn’t the people have rebelled once the first shmittah passed and they were starving? The fact that there is no record of such a thing happening indicates that the promises were kept — hence the Torah was written by God.
The problem with this argument is that, again, you’re making unwarranted assumptions. If you posit that the Torah wasn’t written until much later, then it doesn’t matter what the Torah promises, does it? The “proof” only works if you assume that it was written at Mt. Sinai (or, perhaps, before they entered Eretz Yisroel). Once you toss away that assumption, the “proof” falls apart.
The Wolf
OK, ready now, I think I’ve got your argument. Needless to say, it has a bunch of flaws. I’ll go through them one by one.
You started with:
I’m assuming your argument here is that abiogenesis is impossible and, therefore, God must exist. I’m not so certain that that’s true. Perhaps it *is* possible for things to come into being by themselves. Can you prove that they can’t? In short, you’re making an assumption here — that the one and only way that things can come into existence is via God. You’ve not proven that assumption.
You then continue with:
I’d like to break this down further:
So we have established the world has a Creator The Holy One Of Israel.
You have established no such thing. Even if I were to grant you your previous premise (that things don’t just make themselves), you certainly haven’t proven that the Being that we worship is the being who created the world.
You then go on to:
That means He would be able and willing to communicate with us if He so wished – and He did,
This is one of the worst flaws in your argument. You are engaging in circular reasoning. How do you know that He communicated with us — because it says so in the Torah. But if you’re trying to prove Torah Min HaShamayim, you can’t use the text of the Torah as that proof.
since no-one else did, we can safely acknowledge Him as The Sole Communicator to the Jewish people
I fail to see how you’ve proven that there is only one deity. You’re just asserting it. Perhaps there are two or more.
In short, you’ve failed to prove the point. You have failed to prove that God exists. Even if I grant you that the world was created by a god, it is certainly not proven that he is still around (lower case letters used on purpose).
You’ve also failed to prove Torah MinHaShamayim. In fact, the only attempt you’ve made to prove it is from the Torah itself — an example of circular reasoning.
Furthermore, as a result, you’ve also failed to prove your premise that if everyone were to stop learning Torah that the world would be destroyed. You’ve still presented no evidence to this assertion.
That the Torah is from Heaven is just obvious because we established above that The Creator Hashem is able to and did communicate with all of us Jewish people here today and did so as we all stood at the foot of Har Sinai, at Matan Torah.
No more loitering in the Coffee room.
Proof, please?
The Wolf
I’m going to respond to ready now, but before I do so, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I believe in Torah Min HaShamayim. Yes, I find all the proofs to be flawed, but that does not mean that the premise itself is flawed… merely the proof. I’d like to post something I wrote on my blog two years ago regarding this:
1. Lack of evidence does not equal evidence of lack.
I’m sure that many of you have heard this before and it is 100% valid. Just because I can’t prove that the Inivisible Pink Unicorn does not exist does not mean that it does not exist. Of course, each individual has to weigh for themselves how strongly consider the lack of evidence when making a determination — but it cannot be used as definitive proof that the object you are considering does not exist.
2. Demolishing a proof does not equal demolishing the underlying argument.
In each case, I will show how the proof being presented is flawed. I will not, however, be presenting any counter-arguments. I will make no statements of my own regarding the Divinity of the Torah (which, for the record, I do believe in), nor will I be making any arguments against it.
In short, don’t take the fact that I find the proofs to be flawed to be evidence that I don’t believe in Torah MinHashamayim, or that God exists, or any other such thing. It is perfectly valid to show that a flawed proof is, in fact, flawed.
The Wolf
The world would have ceased to exist if Torah was not being studied.
Again, where’s the proof for this? Where is the proof that the world will end if everyone stops learning Torah?
I am sorry to have to say this Wolf, many idolators are amongst those who think that the world exists without a maker.
That’s not a proof. Because an idolator believes (or doesn’t believe) something does not affect whether it’s true or false.
The additional proof is that many times the world has almost come to an end has v sholom, because of neglect of Torah study – e.g. people with real potential loitering in places like this particular thread in the Coffee Room asking or pretending to ask totally un-called for questions, inviting what comes.
Are you suggesting that asking questions in the CR is going to cause the end of the world?
I’m beginning to think that you don’t fully understand the concept of a proof, so I’ll expand upon it.
You stated that the constant study of Torah is proof that it comes from HKBH. Again, how is that proven? You state that if it were not studied, the world would cease to exist — but, again, that’s an assertion, not a proof.
You stated that the fact that the world cannot exist without HKBH is proof that the Torah is from Heaven. When asked for proof, your rejoinder was “well, idolators think….” What idolators have to say on the matter is really beside the point and is not a proof at all to your position. So, again, I ask you the same two questions…. a. please prove that the world cannot exist without HKBH and b. if you can prove a, please show how this is a proof that the Torah is from Heaven.
To guide you, allow me to give you a piece of advise one of my professors in grad school told me:
A set of facts or evidence without a position is a summary.
A position without facts or evidence is an assertion.
A position with facts and/or evidence is an argument.
Please provide a cogent *argument* to prove your points.
Thanks,
The Wolf
Proof that the Torah is from Heaven: Unbroken chain of teaching Torah up to and including this generation
Please elaborate. How is the fact that Torah is studied up to this day a proof that the Torah is from Heaven?
and that it is impossible for anything to even exist without a maker our Maker Hashem, the One and Only.
Please prove (or at least expand upon what you mean by) that it is impossible for anything to exist without a Maker (please use capitals when referring to HKBH), and, once you prove that, please explain how the existence of God proves that the Torah is from Heaven.
Once you make your case, I can properly respond.
The Wolf
2) Stories like are really accurately reported, eyeroll. You are judging from the word passuled, which is a translation of something reported on an Israeli blog to assume what actually happened, rather than use seichel? You are better than that.
But you are making assumptions when there is no basis to do so. You don’t know what happened… neither do I. Hence, my statement that it depends on how it was reported.
In any event, even if you are correct, my other point remains. This should not have been done at the wedding — if the MK had a problem with any particular person or had any objections, he should have made them known to the chosson and kallah before the wedding, giving them the option to either find another witness or find another MK (if they really wanted this person as a witness).
It is not proper to make personal/political statements such as this at someone else’s wedding. If you have a non-halachic objection, take care of it beforehand.
The Wolf
I was already using the name elsewhere.
The Wolf
It’s impossible to have been so accurate back when the gemara was written
I blogged about this two years ago. To summarize:
1. If you can count days and lunar cycles, you can come up with a pretty good estimate for the lunar period. All you have to do is note the number of days and lunar months between solar or lunar eclipses and divide. The more data points you have (i.e. the more eclipses observed), the more exact your figure for the lunar cycle will be.
2. Secondly, this is presented in the Gemara as a tradition that Rabban Gamliel received from his father that the moon’s period is not less than 29 days, 12 hours, 40 minutes and 73 chalakim. Let’s assume, for the moment, that the statement is true (which, to the best of my knowledge, it is). What does it prove? It proves that Rabban Gamliel’s father knew the period of the moon, nothing more. Even if you posit that HKBH came to Rabban Gamiliel’s ancestors and told them “The period of the moon is not less…,” all it proves is that they knew it. It certainly doesn’t prove that everything (or even anything) is in the Torah is true.
Do we really know how much knowledge the Greeks and Romans garnered before the onset of the Dark Ages?
Forget the Greeks and Romans… it’s older than that. The Babylonian astronomer Naburimani calculated the synodic period of the moon several centuries before Rabban Gamliel.
The Wolf
P.S. By the way, it’s a common assumption/fallacy that the ancients (i.e. non-Jewish) astronomers/scientists couldn’t have known anything without watches, telescopes and the like. If you want to get a good idea of how much you can learn about the Earth from just a stick, stone and a rope, read Chapter 5 of Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s excellent book “Death by Black Hole.”
The Wolf
Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t
Of course, even if owning an Iphone is an Aveira, so what?
No one is perfect. We all have sins to confess on Yom Kippur. We’re all, to one degree or another, sinners. If you’re going to insist on a sin-free witness, there will never be a witness again in the world.
The Wolf
What did you get a ticket for?
Just got a cell phone ticket
… presumably for using it while driving.
The Wolf
And to whomever said it was political and not halachic, how is it appropriate to make political statements at someone’s wedding, when that someone probably chose the eidim beforehand and now you go ahead and decide to jettison that pick?
Personally, I think that it is within the MK’s rights to do so. Whether it’s appropriate to do so is another question.
And certainly, such issues should have been clarified well before the wedding, to avoid potential embarrassments and to give the couple a chance to find another MK if they absolutely wanted this person as a witness. The couple should have been given the option ahead of time. At the wedding is not the appropriate time to start making non-halachic* (i.e. personal/political) objections.
The Wolf
* I was at a wedding once where the couple called up the bride’s brother-in-law as a witness. That’s an example of a *halachic* objection (since he’s ineligible).