Health-

I haven’t seen a Yeshiva yet that pressures the guys to go to sleep on time so they can get up for Davening.

Seriously?? I don’t know where you’ve been, but every yeshiva I’ve been too was very serious that bachurim go to sleep on time so that they could wake up for davening. Except the yeshivos that don’t pressure you period.

Patur Aval Assur-

Even those who are up, aren’t always learning. Some take long coffee breaks or pick as a chavrusa b’davka the guy who they know they’ll be able to shmooze all day with. And I do personally feel that attendance is not the most important thing all of the time as long as the guy is learning wherever he is and he is not slacking off. That’s why I would rather see tests then attendance being strictly taken. Let me reiterate, I’m not talking about difficult tests. And for all I care, the test-takers don’t need to be made aware of their scores, because that’s not really what’s important, and I don’t know that this kind of competition is healthy in a yeshiva. What’s important is that they are in yeshiva or kollel because of an ideal, to achieve something, and not just because it is easier than going to work or learning a profession.

modchebp-

Just an aside, even without changing the system, there are tests that you can take in BMG, especially on halacha subjects, and if a prospective parent-n-law is so concerned, couldn’t a deal be arranged in which the prospective son-in-law agrees to take the tests and accomplish x amount in x amount of time with reasonable flexibility?

But again, I do agree very much in principle with your concept.

Hacham-

It’s been a really long time since I’ve went over that sugya, but here’s what I have from memory.

The mishna is talking about b’oneis. It has nothing to do with kana’im pog’im bo.

In Moreh Nevuchim (towards the end of the third chelek where he talks abot the reasons for the mitzvos) the Rambam explains the halacha that since this bi’ah may cause a mamzer it comes with a pgam that will last forever and that is why the person has a status of a rodef. At first glance it would seem that he did not have the girsa of zechur. It would also seem that any ervah b’oneis would be included. Why did the mishna specify na’arah hame’urasah? Probably because the Torah uses that case in Parshas Vayezei. And from here one could also infer that the din rodef would last until ??? ????.

Kana’im Pog’im Bo has to be during the actual ma’aseh. I’ll look it up later but I’m sure about this.

quark2-

I touched on this earlier – is it a stirah in rashi, from 25: were ksus lailah goes by time, and elsewhere, where ksus lailah goes by the beged?

Regarding your query. You wrote:

this would mean, that is someone had the (strange) minhag to wear pajamas during the day, that would be considered ksus yoim for him (although it is possible that this would only be true if the beged was made specifically for him)

frumnotyeshivish-

Obviously one must work on oneself to increase sensitivity to eventually reach or strive for the level of etzba k’tana.

I’ve heard this before and I don’t get it. According to you Rav Acha and Rav Gidel weren’t worked on people??

Kabbala in this context means the words of the nevi’im, nothing to do with the way it is used today.

Quark2-

How is he like a Malach Hashem? I would think that it is because he is wearing the white sdinin (white is a color associated with malachim in other places).

Only on erev shabbos he would wear the white sdinin? If so, why?

Maybe it had to do with the rchitzah, perhaps in those days they wouldn’t bathe very often, so when he did the rechitzah on erev shabbos, he became like a malach hashem.

Anyway, i think the simple answer to your question is, he would remove the sdinin that had the kilaim before Shabbos. It does not say in the gemara that he would leave them on, so it could be that he took them off.

I tried to preclude this answer in my question as I think it is a major docheik. He (clearly) put on the ?????? ????????? lekavod Shabbos, but he took them off before Shabbos?!

Another possibility, that might need to be explored a little more, is that the gemara in Brachos deals with someone who put on the beged bi’issur. Whereas here, the levishah of the beged was biheter.

(it would be a chiddush to say that this should make a difference later on, after the beged is already on, but i still think that it may be possible to draw such a distinction. Since the original levishah was a ‘kum vi’eseh’ issur, that makes the whole levishah, one long kum vieseh levishah of issur. In other words, the maaseh levishah stretches out from when he put it on, until he takes it off.)

On the ball and Lomed Mkol Adam – Thank you:)

One could try to explain it as simply another way of saying ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?’ ??? ????? – that is, ????? is more figurative and not referring to a physical place.

But as MichaelC pointed out, the Gemara seems to understand it differently.

quark2-

About wearing tzitzis at night. There is a ptur on tzitzis at night, see the sugya in shabbos. Some chassidim wear tzitzis at night though, based on kabbalah.

It’s actually a machlokes, Rashi and Tosafos hold that “day clothing” requires tzitzis even at night. The Rambam holds that there is a general p’tur at night. The Mechaber brings both dei’os.

While we’re on the subject, I’ve been bothered for a while by what I think is a shtarke rayah against the Rambam, so I’ll put it out there and hear what the oilam has to say.

In Shabbos 25: the Gemara tells the story of R’ Yehuda’s Friday afternoon. He would bathe, dress up in linen shawls that had tzitzis of wool on them, and wait for Shabbos to come. The gemara relates how his talmidim used to tuck in the corners of their ????? when they were around him, because they held that mi’drabanan one is not permitted to wear tzitzis of sha’atnez because he may come to do this with a ???? ???? which would be a violation of the issur sha’atnez since there is no mitzva of tzitzis by a ???? ????. R’ Yehuda disagreed about this chashash and therefore he flaunted his woolen tzitzis on his linen shawls.

My question is: Everyone agrees that a ???? ???? of sha’atnez is assur. The machlokes was whether or not we are gozer ??? ???? ????. I would think it quite reasonable to assume that if R’ Yehuda was dressing up for Shabbos he didn’t throw off his clothes as soon as Shabbos came. If so, according to the Rambam that even “day-clothing” is patur from tzitzis at night, how was he allowed to wear these ?????? ????????? without being oiver on the issur sha’atnez?!

(Bear in mind that the gemara in Brachos 20a doesn’t consider sha’atnez shev v’al ta’aseh even though it’s already on the person, also bear in mind the Rambam’s shita that there is no such thing as tosafos shabbos.)

quark2-

Yup. Iy”h I’ll ask around.

Hacham-

Ayin sham in Minchas Shlomo, that’s all I wish to say.

Chacham-

I accept that.

Shlishi-

Without getting involved in politics…

I am refering to Haga’on Harav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin Zatzal. He writes this in his k’savim. His basis is that stam yeinam is assur for two reasons, Avodah Zarah and B’noseihem, and neither reason applies to mechalelei shabbos nowadays.

quark2-

I hear what you are saying. Just a few points:

I highly doubt it. If that were the case, our Sifrei Torah would be written using a printing press.

Without getting involved in something highly controversial, I must note that my rav is mattir silk-screened Sifrei Torah l’chatchilah. V’doik.

Ksav sheino miskayam is full %100 ksav, only it will be erased. Ksav made up of many little dots, is, according to some opinions, not ksav at all.

(the practical application is soda cap dates and numbers. I am not saying that you should take on this heter personnaly, but when we are deciding whether or not these people are not considered jewish for many things, and someone even brought up yayin nesech, I think that this should definitely be taken into consideration.)

Who holds this way? Do you have a name? Because I fail to understand this argument. What’s the difference between this and ink which is technically just millions of little molecules. The defining factor is obviously that you see it as on letter so why should typing be better. Regarding opening bottles, I did not know anyone gave that as a reason, I thought it was simply kil’achar yad and psik reisheih d’lo nicha leih. Do you have a source for your reasoning? I am asking for a source because it is a chiddush to me and I would like to see it inside so I may understand the svara better.

As to your other point, truth be told if I was convinced it was muttar and my rav agreed I would not withhold myself from taking it on personally. I am just not convinced. With regard to yayin nesech however, no matter what the halacha is here I believe their wine is muttar gamur – R’ Henkin demonstrates that nowadays a mechalel shabbos’s wine is fine.

I believe that it is the shita of Rishonim that one is only chayav for ksav ashuris. See the Chayei Adam shabbos 37:5 (“rov” poskim etc.)

I will check up the CA but I should say I think the Rambam is the pashtus and I think this is the opinion of most poskim, including the Aruch Hashulchan and the MB as Chacham succintly pointed out.

seeallsides-

You are not mistaken. Not everyone holds this way but it is a recognized opinion.

It might be possible that even in Beis Din we would be able to be ????? Hitler, and I’ll explain.

The Gemara (Bava Metzia 10b) says that a person who steals via his ???? ??? is considered a regular ganav, even if we say that the courtyard is considered the person’s shliach. Fregt the gemara – Ayy ??? ???? ???? ?????!?! There are two answers given: 1) The only time we say ??? ???? ???? ????? is when the shliach is also not allowed to do it. Here, the courtyard has no chiyuvim, so the “????” is chayav. 2) The only time we say ??? ???? ???? ????? is when the shliach has a choice. Here, the courtyard has no choice.

Tosafos (?”? ?? ??? ?? ????) seems clear that according to answer #2 we don’t limit this halacha to a courtyard which absolutely has no choice – i.e. it isn’t capable of saying I’m not going to do this, rather we even apply it to a case where a person is forced into something against his will – e.g. if I put a gun to your head and say damage this object I will be considered the mazik through ??????.

Accordingly, one could say that since every soldier is subservient to the commander-in-chief, and one who disobeys his orders would receive serious punishment or even death, this is called ??? ????, and we will say ?? ???? ???? ?????.

The reason why I only say it might be possible, and not definitely, is due to two considerations: 1) Apparently the Rema paskens like the first answer. See the long Shach there. 2) It is questionable if a non-Jew can make a ???? at all. (We know from ??? ?? ??? that a non-Jew doesn’t work as a ???? for a Jew, but for a non-Jew there is lots to klerr.)

However, once we’ve mentioned that we’re dealing with a goy, it might be even more pashut that Beis Din will convict him. This is because the Rambam (Melachim 9:4) is clear that a non-Jew who murders is chyav even if it is just a grama, ?”?.

And finally, the others are certainly correct in saying that even if Beis Din cannot be ????? him he is certainly ???? ???? ?? ????. Hashem knows what each person deserves and is fair and just.

I am not going to comment on the question of whether or not it applies today, but it should be clarified that it is not only about persuasion. It is more general than that. For example, the Beis Yosef in the beginning of Hilchos Shechita cites an opinion that women should not shecht because they are more prone to feeling faint at the sight of all the blood and not shecht properly then men, because nashim da’atam kalos. It is an idea that seems to say that women are generally weaker-hearted than men.

MichaelC-

I find that hard to believe, because the gemara explicitly states that when the nail is moved from the original place it fell, even just swept to the other side of the room, it does not have that effect.

The simple explanation of the gemara is that it refers to a certain ??? ???. Although we generally don’t go as far as to completely abolish halachos based on ??? ???, numerous poskim indicate that we are not prone to it the way they were in the olden days.

From a purely legal perspective in Halacha, one cannot be convicted in a criminal matter based on his own implication. Moreover, the standard death penalty is never carried out when there aren’t two witnesses who warned the accused immediately prior to the act. However, if the court is convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused did indeed murder the victim and is a menace to society, there is a legal means of ‘doing away’ with him without carrying out the standard death penalty.

There are no non-kosher ingredients. You can verify this at your local Starbucks.

However, not all of the ingredients are certified.

The halacha can be found in ???? ??.

According to some, folding on the creases is a problem. This seems to be the halacha in the Shulchan Aruch. The Aruch Hashulchan however says ?????? ???? and he explains that our folding is not the kind of folding that is assur.

R’ Ovadia in Yechaveh Da’as 2:40 says that one should be machmir l’chatchila not to fold on the creases. He adds that one should not protest those who fold normally because they have what to rely on.

Personally, I know a few rabbanim who are meikil l’chatchila.

In my humble opinion, the lower neck is muttar l’chatchilah.

The Mechaber paskens (181:11) that since there are varying opinions in the Rishonim as to the locations of the ??? ????, a ??? ???? should not use a razor on his beard at all. The ??? adds “and even below the throat,” which seemingly answers your query, and not like me!

However, see the Beis Yosef which is the source of this halacha (?”? ???? ?”? ???”?) where he cites R’ Yonah that below the throat does not present a problem of ??? ????. However, he says that one still may not do so because of the issur of ?????? ????.

Take a look in the next siman where the Rema writes that the specific ?????? ???? which are mentioned by chazal such as shaving certain areas of the body are muttar l’chatchilah for men in societies where it is the norm for men to remove the hair in those areas. In ???? ? where the Mechaber says it is assur for a man to look into a mirror R’ Akiva Eiger says that the norm of the non-Jews determines the norm for us in this halacha. If the norm by the goyim is for the men to do it, it is not ?????? ????.

Being that I think everyone will agree that it is the norm in our society for men to shave their lower necks, and for non-Jews to do it with a razor, I think that the second half of R’ Yonah quoted by the Beis Yosef does not apply today, and neither does the ???.

Therefore, ??? ?????? ???? ??????, and it is muttar for a man to use a razor on his lower neck.

Of course this is just ??????? ????? as I am not qualified to pasken.

I agree with tro11. I think the whole ‘women are closer to Hashem’ thing was said by people to justify Judaism against attacks by feminism, but they cut off their nose to spite their face (I’m sure there’s a more appropriate adage I just can’t think of it). Either way I don’t believe it.

TBT-

If you are correct, then:

1) Why does he davka say ???? ?????? Why not ???? ??????

2) You are willing to say that the tune inherently carries with it a bad ???. Isn’t it just as, if not more ?????? that ????? ?? does too? I see plenty of people covering their babies ears when someone says a not nice thing, perhaps it is a shtus, but why do you think it is more ?????? that the bad ??? is coming from the tune than from the words?

3) Regarding what R’ Chaim supposedly said, I am intrigued. There is a famous Yerushalmi* that says that R’ Yehoshua ben Chananya’s mother would bring him as a baby to the Beis Medrash in order that he should absorb the sound of Torah learning. How would he answer that?

I already demonstrated that the Mishnah Berurah himself is matir using non Jewish tunes in davening, and over there he does not bring this problem of ???? ?????. This too leads me to believe that it was the words that he held is a problem. And even if not, from the fact that he doesn’t bring it l’halacha over there and instead simply quotes the Bach that it is mutar, is clear proof in my opinion that he did not hold of it as a halacha.

As for heeding the advice of the Shelah and the Chafetz Chaim, first of all I don’t even know that they gave the advice you claim they did, and second of all being that even on the tzad they did, it was not said l’halacha, so of course, no, one is not mechuyav to heed their advice. That’s why it is called advice, and not halacha.

*I don’t have the exact makor, but it is quoted here: link to citation removed, sorry.

Grandmaster-

“one or two ‘bad words'” is no big deal?

Bad words are not nice and not the way a person should speak, because a person should only speak ???? ????. However, when said out of the context ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? it is pashut that they aren’t the ????? ?? the Gemara (that I mentioned above) talks about.

TBT-

The Mishne Beurah in Shaar Hatziun (560 note 25) quotes the Shelo who says mothers should not sing their baby to sleep with non-Jewish lullabies since it creates a bad nature in the child.

Correct. However, first of all ?????? the Shlah is talking al pi kabbala. Nobody brings a source in halacha, in fact the Mishnah Berurah himself as I quoted above is matir using non Jewish tunes in davening. But more importantly, his words are ???? ?????, romantic songs, so for all I know pshat in the Shlah and the Shaar Hatziyon is that such songs likely contain messages in the lyrics which could be damaging.