Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I met my wife online.
Seriously.
BYM does not indicate that she is no longer believes in the religion. On the contrary, she writes:
“If I didn’t have some belief (I like to think of it more as konwledge) I wouldn’t be interested in learning gemara. Or anything Jewish at all.”
You are scared that someone is not as confident as you are about everything you’ve so willingly accepted without question. It is not her lack of belief that is bothering you. It is your own insecurity. You just don’t like people whose thoughts undermine the system you are so comfortable with.
Well get used to it.
This story, like all stories, is more about the message than its historicity. Messages are much more timeless than detailed stories.
If the particulars of this story make it more confusing than not, then instead of focusing on the particulars, focus on the fact that Chazal recognized the question of “but it isn’t their fault” and addressed it head on by saying that they will indeed be given another chance.
The Gemara (Avodah Zarah 3a) says that Hashem will give them a second chance, for the very reason your student intuited: that it isn’t their fault.
It says he will give them the mitzva of Sukkos, so good timing on this one.
It also predicts that they will ultimately reject the mitzva. However, one would think that this prediction is not set in stone, for if it were, it would (ironically) entirely defeat the purpose.
lol
Because they are like malachim.
I wondered what a passerby would make of me in my cuppel seated at a window-side table drinking coffee with an obviously non-Jewish couple eating their obviously non-Kosher sausages.
The OP might think you’re a mushchas, eating treif and having an affair and maybe being oved avodah zarah as well. The rest of us would probably assume you were having a business meeting.
You have your reasons for staying frum.
Another way of saying that, is that on some level being frum is meaningful to you.
It shouldn’t be difficult then to figure out how Yom Kippur can be meaningful to you as well.
Shtuyot. Maybe the guy is frustrated that he can’t make a leining on three lines of Gemara without breaking his teeth.
Oh, and as far as I know ??? ?????? never appears in the Talmud.
Many reasons is takkeh a convincing answer.
The apology that is offered for machnisei rachamim doesn’t sit very well with me. I don’t understand why would need to explain to Hashem exactly how to apply his midos. Perhaps instead of asking for health, we should read a biology textbook and at the end, say “ok God, now that you know how the body works, please ensure it functions properly.” Hashem knows quite a lot. I would think that it would be more useful to utilize one’s praying time praising, pleading, and thanking, rather than trying to sound all cool by letting God know that we have all this fancy inside information.
the top of a woman’s head constitutes a usually-covered area (i.e. with hair)
So if a woman’s finger was amputated she needs to wear a tichel on the stump because it is a usually covered area, i.e. with a finger?
I think the story is mentioned in the introduction to Letters to a Buddhist Jew by Rabbi Akiva Tatz.
Likud –
The cRc is probably being machmir because they did not consider or do not agree with my point of the juice not being ???? ??????.
Also, I am less reluctant to rely on somewhat of a creative kula since – a) I follow a school of thought that holds the “kashrus sensitive ingredients” they are talking about are kosher anyway; and what is perhaps more relevant – b) at the end of the day, being concerned about Tosafos’s opinion is only a chumra; it is not the ikkar hadin.
It would seem from the cRc’s alert that they would have an issue with all types of e-cigarettes. Regular cigarettes are different, a) because “kosher sensitive ingredients” are much more rare; and b) because I’ve heard people ascribe to a line of reasoning that says that smoke from a non-kosher item is permitted to ingest even if vapor isn’t. I mentioned the basis for this in footnote 9 in the blog post.
Google and you will find a blog post I wrote about this.
Eggs are not batel when they are their shells on.
Rennet might not have an appetizing flavor but its flavor adds to the flavor of the cheese in a positive way, just like salt and yeast aren’t very appetizing on their own but they add significantly to the final product. Leather does not have anything to offer. Try it, you’ll see.
the point is that this is the internet and it’s full of morons and anti-Semites
All the more reason to not overstate arguments and to be very, very clear about what you truly believe. And think about it – if no one would have made up the shtus that human blood is chazer treif back in the day when they were trying to refute the blood libels, and instead they would have stuck to the simple and true argument of “we don’t go around killing innocent children and you have zero evidence that we do” – we wouldn’t be having this discussion in the first place, because there would be no risk in telling the truth. As they say, sheker ein lo raglayim. In this day and age, “keeping quiet” is the same thing. There’s no point, it doesn’t last.
SecularFrummy –
I am not sure why you say rennet has no flavor on its own, I was under the impression that it does. And since it changes the whole cheese and makes it what it is (as yeast does to dough, for example), the cheese retains the issur.
Sam, if you are worried about blood libels, trying to fight lies by covering up truths will never work in this information age.
The blood libels were false because they represented a superstitious and bigoted way to interpret situations such a child gone missing, that completely ignored due process, relied on unreliable evidence, and supported collective cruel and unusual punishment.
Overstating the argument by saying “and blood happens to be chazer treif” is not productive in this age where everyone can (and generally will, eventually) find everything out. On the contrary, an overstated argument is a lost argument. Besides, even if it were true, it is hardly the main motivation one might have to refrain from killing little children.
Toi –
So in EY they are a davar shebeminyan (and l’choira cigarettes would be the same). Saying they punkt don’t sell singles is like saying they punkt sell it b’mishkal. That’s exactly the point, that an individual egg is not a davar chashuv on its own in this area of the world.
jewishfeminist02 –
You may wish to remind your husband that for all intents and purposes human flesh is not kosher, per Shulchan Aruch 79:1 in the haga at the end.* While there may be a rishon who disagrees as is noted there, according to the Rambam there is an issur d’oraisa, and it is derived from a mitzvas asei.
Human blood is a different story. That is technically permitted if not for an issue of mar’is ayin. I blogged about that once.
*http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9145&st=&pgnum=352
Well most people do mitzvos for normative reasons, or as the navi would say ???? ????? ??????. We’re all a bunch of people in glass houses.
I have not thought enough about this, but I have an initial thought.
Eggs are not a davar shebeminyan here in the USA.
Now you say, but of course they are! They are sold by the dozen!
Well I say that’s exactly why they are not. Davar shebeminyan is when they are sold by individual count, hence each one is a davar chashuv, but when they are never sold individually and only in dozens then it is the entire package of a dozen which is a davar shebeminyan; the individual eggs are nothings!
Again, I have not thought about this much, and I don’t remember the sugya well. It just occurred to me.
Because they believe that we cannot expect a system of government to preserve our own freedoms and at the same time expect it to limit others’.
SecularFrummy –
Only something with flavor is halachicly considered food for purposes of issur v’heter.* Therefore dried out bones and hides which have no (or extremely little) flavor do not constitute meat in the sense that they would be prohibited to mix with milk. This is probably what Sam means.
*The Torah says that non-kosher food should be given to the ger toshav among us. On this the Gemara darshens that only food which is fit to be given to another human being to eat is not kosher; not something which is “not fit for the ger.” Therefore something spoiled or something completely dried out of flavor does not have non-kosher status.
Sam –
Pashut P’shat is that the Beis Yosef held that a man and his wife is always Derech Chibah
That’s pashut pshat?! Come on. Just because it’s more convenient not to have a shverre Beis Yosef doesn’t make it pashut pshat. And that would be shver in any case, because the Beis Yosef himself paskens like the Rambam that between a husband and wife histaklus can be for simple hana’ah and not tayva and therefore mutar when the woman is a Niddah – something he would not say by ordinary arayos – and now you are going to say that pashtus is all chibah of married people is chibas bi’ah, more so than unmarried people?
My point was that implying that stam negiah is a d’oraisa without qualifying, especially in the context of this discussion, is misleading, and I still think so, despite the fact that there are people who are of that opinion.
As for the question itself, certainly in this situation where the negiah is clearly not related to negiah of chibah, it would be permitted beyond any doubt. It is not any different than a doctor.
Sam, your post is misleading.
There is solid basis to say that negia is not d’oraisa when it is not “derech tayva v’chibas bi’ah.” This, by the way, is clearly not the same as simple affection.
See the Shach 195:20 found here who says this straight out: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9146&st=&pgnum=316&hilite=
Many contemporary poskim happen to agree with the Shach, including the noted machmir, the Badei Hashulchan.
If you do not have the requisite knowledge to answer a question for yourself then follow whoever you are more comfortable with, but be consistent.
I’ve never heard the Aruch Hashulchan referred to as the Aruch.
Disagreeing with a Rema is not the Aruch Hashulchan’s chiddush.
Couldn’t help it, just drove all the way back for more.
I just had it for the first time tonight. Whoever says there is no such thing as good pareve cholent has never tasted Getty on the Hill’s cholent.
MDG –
He has a couple of teshuva seforim, here’s one:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1525&st=&pgnum=1&hilite=
Also, the website does generally reflect his views.
As someone who has known Rav Abadi for many years, I’d be very surprised to know that he ever mattered all wines. I’ve personally asked him staam yainum shaalos and he has never just said o all wines are fine. It is possible that the website, which belongs to his sons, made an error. This has happened in the past (see oats on pesach, bugs in water, tehillim for choleh), but i would be shocked if Rav Abadi ever held that way personally. You may be confusing his wine psak with his grape juice psak.
Also, Rav Abadi lived in Israel for many years, but has since moved back to lakewood.
I can personally corroborate these statements. Except for the part about newhere knowing Rabbi Abadi, because I do not know who newhere is.
nonsense is nonsense; theological analysis of nonsense can only create an aura of cogency where none exists
Way to put a spin on Saul Lieberman’s line-
“Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is scholarship…”
Welcome back eclipse.
benignuman –
It is possible that someone might disagree with the Rambam as to the status of this din, and rather holds it was derived in an honest attempt to derive the meaning of the Torah. I don’t think that would be apikorsus. But saying that the Torah was meant literally and the Sages changed the law because they didn’t like it and then lied and said it was what the Torah really meant, is apikorsus.
But would you say it is apikorsus in the sense that every mevazeh talmidei chachamim is an apikores (if one says this derisively) or because there is something here which is a fundamental denial of Torah sheba’al peh? If the latter, how do you support this view, considering Sumchos held that tzroros pays nezek shalem? To put it a little differently, if someone holds this view and frames it a in a non-condescending but respectful way, and not in all cases, is he an apikores?
benignuman –
In other words, Chazal are saying that “eye for an eye” always meant money, it was never meant, or practiced, literally. To say Chazal were lying, and they didn’t really get it from Moshe mipi HaGevurah but instead made it up, is to deny the Torah Sh’bal Peh as being min hashamayim.
First of all, there is no clear implication in the Gemara that they had a tradition from Moshe Rabbenu about this. On the contrary, the simplest way of reading the Gemara is that they deduced this themselves either through logical analysis or with a drasha.
More importantly, I still don’t see how someone who says this is a denier of Torah sheba’al peh. What if someone says that he agrees there were some things that Chazal had a tradition about, that not everything falls into that category, but it is all halacha either way?
Is Sumchus an apikores for denying chatzi nezek tzroros?
benignuman –
Denial of the validity of Torah Sh’Bal Peh is apikorsus. So if someone says, chas v’shalom, that really “an eye for an eye” was literal and Chazal lied and pretended that it means money. That is apikorsus (or meenus).
Why is that apikorsus? If the person concludes by saying that therefore the halacha is a literal eye, fine. But what if his conclusion is that while they knew it may not have been the Torah’s “true” meaning, the halacha follows their knowingly twisted interpretation? Is such a person denying the validity of Torah sheba’al peh? If so, how?
Disagreeing with someone does not make you an apikorus, no matter who that person is.
That is in regards to having a difference of opinion. In practice, however, normative Judaism sees halacha has having been established in the Gemara, and therefore even if an amora was “wrong” it doesn’t matter, Torah lo ba’shamayim hi.
Therefore you can think whatever you like, but you generally can’t change the halacha.
Claiming R’ Chaim Kanievski is only paskening that way for Bnei Brak does not help much.
A person who doesn’t know that the whole world considers him their posek is not humble, he is stupid. And a person who knows that the whole world considers them their posek should not be reckless and issue unqualified psakim like this which will be thought by laypeople to apply universally while in reality only apply only to their little hamlet. They should clearly specify as such. As a wise person once said, ?????, ????? ???????, ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????, ????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??????, ????? ?? ???? ?????.
Being that I assume R’ Chaim to be neither stupid nor reckless, I assume that either he actually is of the opinion that this applies universally, or someone using his name is, and their logic is probably somewhere along the lines of the Rashba that has been mentioned here.
At any rate, when you learn the sugya, the pashtus is that this halacha does change with the times.
I agree with Popa’s interpretation of the letter.
I also think that promulgating such a letter is probably not the most tactful way to achieve peace.
But I do not think the letter writers were out of their bounds. There is no such thing as someone to choshuv to criticize. The nevi’im knew that and Chazal knew that. ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???. We are not idol worshippers. If they know R’ Stav to be what they say he is, their words are right on target.
Where does the Rambam say to take a shower once a month?
MDG –
The fact that it doesn’t say that it is permitted to put ink on a wound doesn’t trouble me, because people don’t use ink on a wound, they use ashes. Ein hachi nami, if they would use ink on a wound, ink would also be okay.
Your question of why the poskim don’t express a broader heter on all tattoos that are clearly not idolatrous is certainly a good question. I do not wish to say what you are leaning toward saying – that this case is special for another reason, because that goes against the pashtus of the Shach and the Beis Yosef. I would rather speculate that in their societies they simply had no common example of a tattoo that was clearly and obviously not idolatrous aside for medical cases.
Why then is the case of Efer Mikla mutar if tattoos are prohibited by all?
I would answer: Although we are not matir tattoos that are not idolatrous (either like the chachamim, or according to Rashi even like R’ Shimon), that is only because they are similar. I assume this is an issur d’rabbanan, and we are taking the middle ground between Rashi’s chachamim and the others’ R’ Shimon. In a case that there is no similarity because it is clearly and obviously not idolatrous, there isn’t even an issur d’rabbanan; and that is this case.
jewishfeminist02 –
My first thought was that the tattoo might qualify as a chatzitza at the mikveh. On further reflection, I realized that anything– including a tattoo– that is a permanent part of a woman’s body is not a chatzitzah.
There are many reasons why it would not qualify as a chatzitza.
1) It is under the skin, so it is not somewhere that water could reach anyway.
2) It is not significantly tangible (much like hair dye and nail polish which are generally not chotzetz according to the letter of the law)
3) It is something which people normally do not remove. A chatzitza on less than the majority of the body which one generaly does not intend to remove is not chotzetz according to the letter of the law.
Right… their rav knows something that no one here was able to come up with…
Ahem.
MDG –
It seems to me that since the Efer Mikla is normally placed for health reasons…
True – but so what if it is normally placed there for health reasons? Not that that isn’t a good reason, but you have to follow through with something. It’s normally placed there for health reasons and therefore ______? You are saying it’s normally placed there for health reasons and therefore it is permitted for another, added reason; that it only discolors. That can’t be pashut pshat because you are adding a reason that it doesn’t say. I am not adding anything, because the Shach himself follows through: It’s normally done for health reasons and therefore it is permitted because the wound is an indication that the mark is not idolatrous in nature. This seems to me to be pashut pshat.
It is not so difficult to find an avenue of heter for permanent makeup, even if one would be hesitant to practically rely on it.
While a tattoo that is not idolatrous in nature is forbidden (at least mid’rabbanan) according to normative halacha, there is a case where it is permitted. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 180:3) notes that it is permitted to place ashes on a wound, even if doing so will essentially tattoo an indelible black mark on one’s skin.
The question is, why?
If the reason is because of the pain of the wound, than this case has little applicability to the permanent makeup case. If the reason is because it is just a splotch without form, also, this case will have little applicability to our makeup question.
However, the poskim do not say these reasons. Instead, the Beis Yosef and the Shach* state clearly their view that the reason is that the presence of the wound makes it obvious that it is not an idolatrous tattoo.
The fact that they opted for this reason without mentioning anything else implies that this is sufficient reasoning to permit a tattoo. That is, even without the wound factor, if a tattoo is inherently discernible as not idolatrous, it should be permitted.
While one may be reluctant to apply this reasoning with regard to a regular tattoo simply because what is discernible in one place may not be discernible in another, with permanent eyeliner one can probably advance the argument that it is clearly and obviously devoid of any hint of idolatry (since it is obviously a substitute for something every woman does for beauty) and it is therefore permitted.
*The Shach can be found here: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9146&st=&pgnum=249
We are Noheg not to allow T’imas Yisrael.
Who is “we”? I know some who do and some who do not.
DaasYochid’s answer is viable according to the Shach. Alternatively, if one does not agree with the Shach, since there is no way of knowing which is which, it is a classic case of ????, and a fleishig person would be allowed to eat up to fifty of the bowls; maybe more.
That is assuming a bowl of ice cream is not a ??? ????, which is a very reasonable assumption.