Lomed Mkol Adam-

1) Again, none of these attributes are inherently good. They are paths which generally lead people to good.

2) Gezel Ach”um, Capital punishment, Bi’ah Shelo Kidarkah, Goel Hadam are all permitted but Chaza”l say (at least the middle ones) one should try to refrain from doing because of one’s moral feelings.

You are mistaken and your statement is unfounded. To my knowledge, nowhere do Chazal say that because of one’s moral feelings one should be machmir on what the Torah allows. Bring me even one source to the contrary, and we’ll talk.

Your point about kindness to animals is not relevant, because I agree that one should be kind to animals. The point where we differ is whether or not my desire for a steak supersedes that obligation.

Allow me to digress for a moment. There seems to be a trend in your way of thinking which I take issue with. You seem to have everything figured out. You have p’shat in people, p’shat in feelings, p’shat in different segments of society, p’shat in statements of chazal, and so on. I am not knocking you, but I do not share your veneration of explanations. Skepticism is healthy. If you’ll notice, each time we debate an issue, you are defending an explanation of something, which you brought to the table, and I am saying prove it. It’s not that I disagree with all of your explanations, and some of them I may have even thought of myself in my own speculative wanderings. It’s that I am skeptical of things which people say are definitive, true, unalterable, inalienable, etc. etc. and I do not believe in the ??? ??? answer. In a word, I can accept that there are questions I cannot answer, but I cannot accept that there are answers I may not question. Therefore if you choose to debate me on a subject, you must know that I will keep doing this, I will only accept explanations which satisfactorily and simply explain all of the facts. And I have a fairly decent background in Torah literature to back me up. Therefore, anything which you know can easily be explained differently, don’t bother suggesting an alternate explanation in a definitive manner; as a possibility, yes, but definitively, no. As Rav used to tell his students – ?? ???? ??? ???? (Kesubus 48b).

That being said, you seem quite intelligent yourself, and I do enjoy these discussions very much.

coffee together with peppermint gum is not bad

shlishi-

Lol, I was just pointing out that it seemed inconsistent. But ostensibly you are right that from my perspective it is a valid point.

However, the truth is I tried to make myself clear over there that I believe very much on relying on a rav, as I have recommended to many posters in the past. I do believe that a rav can make a mistake and that he does not definitively establish halacha, but at the same time we have every right to follow a rav and rely on him, and we shouldn’t be overly obsessive and worry that he might be making a mistake, even though it’s possible. That is my answer to adorable’s point from my perspective.

adorable-

I don’t understand you. On the bad psak thread you clearly believe that no harm can befall someone who follows their rav’s psak. Yet here you call it iffy. Don’t you think that if my rav tells me there’s nothing wrong with eating at DD I have nothing to worry about?

Lomed Mkol Adam-

Lev Tov and Ayin Tov are good by definition; this what the Mishna in Pirkei Avos means to imply.

I disagree.

Shechting an animal definitely causes it significant pain.

I am sorry to hear that.

However, since the Torah allows one to eat meat and it is even a mitzva sometimes, I do not believe that this pain caused to the animal is morally wrong.

Unless you will tell me ???? ???? ???? ??? ???, in which case I will not have a response. The only thing is, from my understanding of the concept of morals, which is basically moral relativism from a natural, human standpoint, I do not need to accept any such docheik with regard to why we may eat animals, and therefore I will continue to assume that there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing animals in order to eat them.

Lomed Mkol Adam-

1) Lev tov and ayin tov aren’t good by definition. They just make doing good a whole lot easier.

2) But in some cases it is a mitzva, which is why I cited those specific cases.

I do not believe any issue is a moral issue. You see, I will call your bluff. You can bring up the most unthinkable crime and I will still say it isn’t a moral issue. That is, it isn’t immoral based on the fact that our feelings tell us so. Something is immoral because God says so. Without that it is all relative. That is the point I was trying to make in the first place.

One should certainly be compassionate to animals. And shecht them in a way that causes them hardly any pain.

While he’s playing with his phone at the table, text him that the people at the table miss him.

Health-

Indeed, I just checked and there is a notice of certification on the door from the KOA. It says that the products are certified kosher dairy – not CY. There is also another sign which says that there are heimishe brands of milk, cheese, cream cheese, tuna, and egg salad available upon request.

Health – Going to your thread now.

It’s a very good question. It’s related to the question of whether when the Beis Din Hagadol issues a mistaken ruling and they must bring a ?? ???? ???, does the rest of klal yisroel still have to bring personal ?????? I believe that that is a machlokes rishonim and if I’m not mistaken R’ Chaim handels it, though I don’t have seforim in front of me. Bear in mind, however, that in your scenario it seems much more likely that the person following the ruling is closer to a classic shogeg than the case I mentioned, because our rabbanim do not have the authority to make something halacha to the extent that it would be included in ?? ????; only the Beis Din Hagadol does.

If something is truly a bad psak, you certainly may not follow it. Though if a person is ???? ?????? and he has a ???? ????? you can certainly rely on him, even if he’s made a mistake in the past. Everyone makes mistakes.

Definitely Evan Al.

mommamia22-

No, I meant it. Not that it’s a reason to go out again, of course it isn’t. He clearly has issues. But at least he was honest that he liked someone else, and you didn’t have to find out later on.

seagul47-

You cannot rely on allergy warnings because that is to avoid lawsuits. So if the equipment was ever used for milk/nuts/etc. they put the warning (even if there is none in the product being used.

What you just said is more of a reason to rely on them l’kula.

600 Kilo Bear-

I am officially ???? on your straight up ????? ????? ???, who I am proud to say is my rav.

mommamia22-

At least he was honest with you.

Mod 42-

Correct. And since this is a legitimate chumra, it is brought down in halacha even those who aren’t generally machmir should be machmir during Aseres Yemei Teshuva. However, based on the reasoning I mentioned above, some poskim hold that regarding any goods distrubuted by a company there is no reason to be machmir, and that the bread certified by the OU does not even constitute Pas Palter.

Tomche-

Bakeries are not Pas Akum, they are Pas Palter. Palter literally means baker. And many poskim regard bread of companies as even better than Pas Palter, since the reason for the gezeirah was to prevent a closeness to the family of the non-Jew that would lead to intermarriage, and with packaged goods this is not really plausible (And that is the reasoning in halacha why the baker’s bread is better than the private person’s bread).

tomim tihye-

Hey, thanx!

kylbdnr-

I wouldn’t want to get in between you and your significant other, but you should know the truth.

This idea that you mentioned as the reason for covering hair is not nothing – actually if I’m not mistaken R’ Samson Rapahel Hirsch suggests it in Parshas Naso.

However, the Shulchan Aruch paskens that even an unmarried woman must cover her hair! Therefore according to the psak of the Shulchan Aruch, it is obvious that this cannot be the true reason. Why no one seems to be makpid on this today is a good question, but is beyond the scope of our discussion.

So what is the real reason? Good question. But the way halacha works is that since it’s so difficult to actually figure out reasons for stuff and be so sure about it, we first figure out the technical details, and only then speculate as to the reason. And the reason so many rabbis allow for women to wear a wig is because technically it is sufficient, and we have no real, legitimate reason to tell us that it isn’t.

Listen, the details of the halacha are sometimes very technical, and they work within a system that someone who is not a rabbi really isn’t qualified to decide. Not because the rabbis have special powers. Simply because they know all of the details. The halacha isn’t simply determined by the feelings we have while listening to the Torah reading or discussing the parsha at a kiddush. It’s like any specialized field – I’m sure you wouldn’t consider deciding on your own which prescription drug to take (I hope). That’s why if I could offer you any advice it would be that to agree upon a rabbi that you decide to rely on even when you don’t completely understand. It’s the right thing to do, and trust me it will also bypass lots of potential disagreements because halacha questions won’t be up for discussion. And just know that rabbis are nothing to be afraid of. A rabbi knows who he’s talking to and cares about you and will tell you what he thinks is best for you, and he won’t make you do something you can’t. Do a little research, and you’ll find the right one for you.

Lomed Mkol Adam-

It causes you to feel appreciated and loved.

Which would certainly not make it selfless.

When we act upon our instinct to love and we give/care to/for our friend/spouse, we are in essence creating a deeper dimension to our primary instinct feelings of love.

So to get very technical, the feeling is not selfless, only the acting is, as I said.

Giving to a person whom you love is also an emotion.

How is giving an emotion? One might commit to give because of the value he holds for his emotions, but giving is not an emotion, and emotions are not selfless.

So even the most selfless person is actually driven by his inner desire for love.

No argument here.

always runs with scissors fast-

Not everybody holds there is a problem with the Indian wigs. My own rav holds there is no problem whatsoever.

As for your “first-hand story,” honestly I’m not quite convinced you aren’t just taking a line from the 2009 film “New York, I Love You”:

“Most human hair in America comes from our temples in India, where women offer their long locks to God, so that they can be sold to the West and you can have your wigs.”

Sounds curiously familiar. I’m not saying you are making up stories, but when an anonymous poster clearly has an agenda and starts telling stories, you can’t help but wonder.

This is why people should cite valid sources for everything they say. At least everything that can in any way be a cause for some people to look down on others.

ROTFL!! Good one ItcheSrulik!

Lomed Mkol Adam-

Why does a person love his friend or spouse; isn’t that love genuine?

Love has two meanings. Both are verbs, but one is a state of being and one is an action. If you are familiar with dikduk terminology the first would be a ???? ???? and the second a ???? ????. The first is an emotion, the second, while it may be caused by the first, is not.

So, to reiterate my position, as I understand it I see no reason to think people are born with any inherent good intentions or bad ones either for that matter.

*If anyone has just judged me as being chauvinistic you obviously have not read my entire post, in context.

LMA-

It’s quiet obvious that people are born with natural moral tendencies to love other people.

From a very simplistic way of looking at things, yes. But that can easily be explained away as a person’s natural aversion to being alone, or a desire to be liked, or cared for etc. Meaning there may be an urge to be nice to others, but you haven’t shown that it is at all altruistic.

Nice post. However, the Gemara doesn’t say that the ???? ate Titus’s brain or caused his death. It only says it banged on his brain and caused him a lot of pain.

🙂