Benignuman explained the chiluk very well. You may as well say that buying a knife is assur, because it is the first step to killing someone. If someone is confident that they will not smoke often enough for there to be a significant health hazard, you cannot say that each puff they take is assur, because they are not setting into motion any more potential damage than the guy who buys a knife.

I agree with ben.

yekke2 –

With regard to the case of the light in front of the house: while a sensor may be a switch, min hastam you have no idea which step will cause the light to go on/off. Therefore each step is a davar she-eino miskaven, which is mutar, because every davar she-eino miskaven that does not inevitably cause a melacha is mutar. This isn’t only my logic; I have heard this from many rabbanim.

With regard to the toilet case, there are a number of factors to consider, including: 1) It is kil’achar yad (probably what Sam meant), since you are simply getting up to go on your way. While R’ Shlomo Zalman was known to hold that if this is the way it is always done it is not called kil’achar yad or grama, this is a chiddush which others reject. 2) R’ Shlomo Zalman himself would undoubtedly maintain that the electronic mechanism that makes the toilet flush is not d’oraisa. Therefore one can apply principles such as kevod habriyos, tza’ar, oneg Shabbos, etc. to say that one is not obligated to hold it in or stay in the bathroom all Shabbos.

Good question. I think the fact that people generally do not abstain from saying “yes” in Yiddish factors well into this discussion.

Chutzpa.

Is it a non-yeshivish thing to lack a sense of humor?

The one meal thing comes from a Zohar in Parshas Mishpatim cited by the poskim in YD 89:

?? ?????, ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????, ?? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???, ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????, ???? ????? ??????, ?????? ?????

He talks about eating milk and meat in the same meal.

However, he does not indicate that he is talking about milk before meat or meat before milk. He may or may not have been.

Since we have Gemaras and Rishonim and a Shulchan Aruch which make no mention of an issur to eat milk before meat in the same meal, it makes sense from a halachic standpoint to either say the strict halacha is not in accordance with the Zohar, or better yet – that the Zohar was never disagreeing with the way we saw things until now, because he was simply talking about the case of meat before milk, not milk before meat.

Therefore, while one may certainly choose to be machmir, there is very solid halachic basis for not being makpid on separate meals for milk before meat.

DaasYochid –

I looked over the Tur / Shulchan Aruch again over Shabbos, and I honestly do not see a basis to prohibit pants for women in a society in which it is the norm.

The consensus clearly is that male clothing is defined by society. Moreover, I think that normative halacha follows the note of R’ Akiva Eiger on the final s’if that in societies where it is the norm for men to look in mirrors, that is permitted as well. As such it is clear to me that normative halacha has accepted subjective standards not just for clothing, but for the final s’if as well. Therefore in a society where it is the norm for men to dye or pluck their white hairs, pashtus is it would be mutar too.

I can understand the rationale of saying a docheik lekula – one wants to make things more bearable for the tzibur. But saying a docheik lechumra is a lot harder to rationalize, unless it is clear that there is a pirtza. With all due respect to those who disagree, I think to say pants for women constitutes such a pirtza or that is inherently pritzusdig is to not be aware of the current metzius. Therefore I am quite convinced that we should follow the pashtus and not squeeze out issurim.

DaasYochid –

I apologize for not being able to respond that often or get more in to detail; I am very busy lately.

I have not looked over the entire thread to see your exchange with Sam, but for now let me just say that any pshat that says beged isha is not purely defined by the time and place is a big dochek. This is very clear when you learn the sugya in Nedarim and the Tur / Beis Yosef / Mechaber / Rema etc.

More later, hopefully.

There are two potential issues with pants:

1) Male Garb.

2) The “separation of the legs” is visible.

The halacha regarding (1) is that male garb is determined by society. Therefore, in a society where women wear pants, pants would not be considered male clothing.

(2) was an issue raised by the Chazon Ish, and that would apply even if pants are not an exclusively male garment. However, it is only an issue if one interprets a certain Gemara extremely broadly, and that is debatable. I know rabbanim who do not agree with this interpretation, and thus do not agree that this is an issue.

Some say that pants are not tznius because they show the form of the legs. I do not think this is a point about pants. Obviously, any article of clothing a person chooses to wear should be chosen with discretion, whether it’s a pair of pants, a skirt, or a hat.

Did the first trees have rings in them?

The Rambam and others explicitly maintan that opinion. See the Ramban in the beginning of Iyov (who himself has a different view).

the lack of Machlokes before Hillel and Shamai wasn’t due to there being Nevi’im who could Pasken, it was due to the fact that we had a Sanhedrin and thus could reject certain Shittos with finality

This much is mefurash in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 88b).

??? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????

Note how it clearly says even before the students of Hillel and Shammai there were disagreements which were ultimately resolved by vote.

lol

Let the official offendees be offended all they want. It’s harmless.

DaasYochid –

I admit you are making a good point.

I suppose my issue is that I do not see the alternative as a more sensible mehalech. I see a rationalist apporach to Torah – with all its apologies – as the lesser of two evils, pardon the expression.

Okay, let me try this differently.

There was once a king who sent his son to a faraway land. One day a man comes to the prince and says he is a messenger of the king sent to take him somewhere. The prince loves his father and is completely loyal to him, but before following this man he wishes to determine whether he is truly a messenger or just a charlatan. For surely loyalty to his father does not mean being loyal to any person on the street who decides to invoke his father’s name.

So the prince does what any of us would do; he googles the guy. Turns out the guy has a hearing disability, and the prince knows very well that people with hearing disabilities are disqualified from being messengers of the king. The prince confronts the guy with his findings. The guy responds, “this is a test of your loyalties. If you are truly loyal to your father, you will believe I am his messenger despite this detail.”

The prince is insulted that his loyalties are being questioned. He is ready and willing to go through fire and water for his father the king, but he just can’t allow any yokel on the street to take advantage of him. Even if this guy is real, what’s to stop the next guy? His father should know this line of reasoning. This alone is proof to him that the guy is a fake.

Just to be sure, he hired five different private investigators. They each come back with the same answer: from all of the observable facts this guy is a has never seen the king.

So he decides not to follow the guy. Many years later the circumstances have it that he is reunited with his father the king. The first thing his father says is, “why didn’t you follow my messenger that I sent you?!” Answers the son, “how could you send someone that all the observable facts showed he was a fake?” The father replied exactly what the guy had said many years earlier, “that was to test your loyalties!” Said the prince, “how could you test my loyalties like that? How was I expected to know that it was you and not someone else playing me? Surely you don’t expect me to just follow anyone who claims to be from you! Surely you expect me to be rational and reasonable! It’s your own fault that I didn’t follow the guy!”

This is the rationale of those who choose not to explain Bereishis literally, and choose science over literalism. ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????: not just because he is merciful, but because such a method would totally defeat the purpose.

Haha good one

What 24 hour kosher stores are there in Brooklyn? BTW in Lakewood, CVS and Walgreens are open 24 hours a day. There are also at least three restaurants/takeouts there that are open till 2 am.

Rent is much cheaper in Lakewood. But if you don’t want the expense of a car, Brooklyn is more practical.

WIY –

But who says we need to give them what to hang their hat on? There is plenty of bechira to go around without that, as you yourself acknowledge. And think of it as a relationship. A father might test his son’s loyalties, but it kind of makes sense that he should at least make it clear to his son that he’s the father and not have him wondering all his life if he is or not and whether all of his loyalty is in vain. There’s a reason you don’t find this argument in the rishonim. Ein Hakadosh Baruch Hu ba bitrunya im briyosav.

WIY –

My point is that obviously Hashem feels that there is sufficient bechira even in a world that knowledge of his existence is certain. In fact, that is the ideal world, as is evident in our yearning for mashiach. (And as you said, people make bad decisions even when they know what’s right.) Therefore, having the world appear to be billions of years old is completely unnecessary. Ergo, saying that the reason the world looks that old is for our bechira, is at best a cop out.

If you found a genie that only offered one wish, but he only answers wishes on odd numbers, and if its even he kills you, and you found him on a zero, would you ask?

Well that’s easy. I would wish for three more wishes.

See, zero is either both odd and even, or it is neither. If it’s neither, no harm no foul. If it’s both, he can kill me, but he also must grant my wish, which is to give me three more wishes (as any upstanding wisher would wish for). With one of those wishes I can wish that he does not kill me.

Yeah, you’re shallow, superficial, a ba’al gayvah, a ba’al tayvah, and it’s obvious why you’re not dating in-town girls. You probably kill people and worship avodah zarah too.

Seriously, what is with you judgmental wackos?

I think everyone asks some form of this question at one point or another. Most move on, some get hooked on acid.

They’re called BUMPers.