Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
frumsinglegirl-
I won’t debate whether or not they are disgusting lowlifes as you say. My question is, would you have any objection to using tissues made by the same person? How about to using a mathematic principle formulated by such a person? Maybe this is a surprise to you, but the halacha treats music the same way! In halacha (see the sources I cited above) there is no such thing as inherently bad or non Jewish music, inasmuch as there is no such thing as non Jewish tissues or a non Jewish math problem.
Granted, there are those who claim that there is a ‘hashkafic’ problem (which I do not agree to). But with no halachic source to say it is assur, and in fact explicit sources which are matir, how can you pass judgment on people who simply rely on Shas and Poskim?
I agree with Popa, except that even if I held it was ????, if I only held it was a ????? then perhaps in certain circumstances there would be a ???? to be ???? due to ???? ??????. But that is certainly not something to be thrown around lightly.
trust me these songs are taken from the lowest of the low!!
I disagree. I would define vulgar in this context as a song which talks explicitly about things which one should be tzanua about, i.e. … ??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ??????. These songs are dance/pop songs but they aren’t prust in nature at all. The only possible vulgarity is that the unedited version of the songs they adapted contain one or two ‘bad words’, (which you don’t hear on the radio or if you download the edited version) but the idea and content of the songs are not vulgar, and simply fun dance songs.
SJS-
I happen to usually agree with you but in the interest of intellectual honesty I must point out that I think the Ben Ish Chai you quoted will not help here, and that is because he is clear* that the halacha of ervah with regard to krias shma is entirely subjective to societal norms. It might actually be in this very same halacha. Therefore in all honesty he might simply be referring to the norm in his day and age, which cannot be used to prove what the halacha is here, today.
*I don’t have the exact source offhand but I read it once and can get it tomorrow if you’d like.
I just realized that I think my ‘proof’ from the Gemara in Chullin may have been misunderstood.
I was not attempting to prove from R’ Mesharshia’s maskana that Chazal’s knowledge of scientific matters was based on observation. It was from the way he got there. He was trying to figure out a purely halachic sheila: If an animal has an unkosher foot, and then it gives birth, does the non-kosher status of the mother’s foot transfer to the child and in what way? He therefore said, let us figure out what happens when a child is conceived. Does a child’s foot come from the parent’s foot, and therefore the child’s foot will be unkosher too, or does the seed get mixed up, and the foot is coming from other body parts of the parent as well. Later on he retracted his question, because he said that if it were true that a foot bears a foot then every cripple would only bear cripples, and we see this isn’t true. If his science did not come from observation then what in the world was his hava amina and how did he retract it in his maskana?
The answers you are giving are not mistavra and take the gemara out of context. Besides, I have a mefurashe Rambam on my side.
I have a question: Why do you, or some acharonim and maybe even rishonim for that matter, assume in the first place that Chazal’s knowledge was from anything but observation? Where in the gemara is any tanna or amora quoted as saying that his knowledge of the physical world was perfect? For me the most compelling reason to accept what the Rambam says is that why must I bend over backwards to say mind bending and seemingly out of context pshatim in so many gemaras when the most pashute explanation is to simply that their scientific knowledge was based on observation?
I hear. I know the first R’ Chaim handels a little bit in this inyan, I don’t remember what he said though. I have to go but iy”h we’ll be mamshich.
mw13-
the question is if it’s good idea
Still, I have a hard time accepting that something is hashkaficly problematic without a source in the Gemara or Rishonim.
It seems like we agree, and I just don’t hear the svara that you’re tayning.
But, the gemara does a ????? if she was ??? ???, and would probably also say the same for a ???.
Even so, one could tayna that the gemara simply held that it is more pashut that such a takana was made when there is an issur d’oraisa involved. But I admit I am biased by my preconceived notion that ???????? ?????? should not be ???? ??? ????.
Maybe that is because there is no issur d’oraisa of ?? ????? for ?????. Is there?
There isn’t. However, the whole limud is a hekesh which in truth is the pashtus of the pasuk, which says ?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???, ?? ???? ??? (from memory, hope I got it right ?”? ???? ?? ???), which basically says that the actual ma’aseh of ??? ??? is tantamount to murder. Therefore I don’t understand how one could apply that to ?? ?????.
popa-
If you’re ????? in that Gemara it actually seems clear that it is not truly ???? ??? ????. Sounds more like some kind of ???? ???? ????? or something.
And stam azoi I had a kashya on those who say ???????? ?????? is ???? ??? ????; if the whole din of ???? ??? ???? by arayos is learned from retzicha and by retzicha ???????? is b’pashtus not ???? ??? ???? (I know there might be a Rabbeinu Yonah who argues but I’m almost sure it’s not niskabel) then how in turn can one say that ???????? ?????? is?! If you have an answer I’d love to hear.
cshapiro-
You are right, no guy has the right to judge a girl about things he can’t possibly relate to. In gemara and halacha we aren’t judging, only figuring out what is assur and mutar. I hope you can understand that, and I should hope that nothing more than that goes on in these threads.
charliehall-
Not true! Most things that are asur are not ???? ??? ?????
I think his point was that it would then be considered ???????? ??????. Which itself is a machlokes rishonim if it is ???? ??? ?????.
Popa-
This question has gotten me into quite a few arguments lately. Funny thing is that from my limited knowledge the only gemara I can come up with that is explicit about a specific dress code is the thing about not wearing red – which you said was only a chumra! It’s in Brachos 20a according to Rashi’s pshat in the story of the lady with the ??????, though interestingly enough I found the Otzar Hage’onim brings down that it was a shaatnez sheila (!) which actually seems to fit better. Anyway I hope to do the proper research and write a shtikel on this sometime soon.
mw13-
Ah pashuta sevurah doesn’t need a source.
Agreed. Problem is, I don’t agree with the svara.
But besides, if it’s so pashut, then why do the Bach and the Chida both issue a blanket heter regarding a ba’al tefilah using non Jewish music? And why doesn’t Rashi explain the Gemara about Acher that way, if it’s such an obvious svarah?
cshapiro-
Why oh why does this bother you so much?
metrodriver-
Sorry, I was simply referring to your other post; the one directed to me.
Can’t help it, this machlokes between Popa and cshapiro is making me laugh out loud. I do agree with Popa though.
Popa-
Your words are mashma that there is a level of tznius which is halacha. Are you talking about an objective standard, i.e. no matter what the societal norm is, there are certain areas which must be covered l’halacha, as Sister Bear seems to claim, or are you talking about something based on societal norms? Because I have been wondering for a while if there is any makor that tznius in halacha is anything but the latter, so if you hold the former, please enlighten me.
You know yourself better than anyone in the CR, so think about it and you decide. And ask your rav.
That is a really great question and deserves its own thread.
mw13-
True, listening to secular music (assuming there’s no problem of kol isha) is not halachicly assur. However there may be hashkafic problems, as smile66 and StuffedCabbage explained above.
I am sorry but as a kalte litvak you are going to have to do more than that to get me to believe there’s a problem. Eib es steit nit steit nit.
metrodriver-
Indeed, that has been mentioned on previous threads.
Lol, yup he was definitely drunk.
cucumber-
You’re welcome, though I think there’s been a bit of a misunderstanding. The issue I am talking about is not a hashkafic one; regarding that I agree with you. It is just that from my experience there are complications with just looking up a shrink in the phonebook, and I’ll explain.
First of all, when someone sees a psychologist for therapy, the therapy will only happen if there is a rapport betweeen the therpist and the patient. It is like a shidduch, the person can be the best psychologist but if it’s not a match it won’t work. What happens when someone is set up with the wrong person, especially if it is more than once, is that they give up – and these are the people you hear ranting about how psychologists never work.
Second of all, just like every doctor goes to med school but one specializes in cardiology, one in podiatry, and the other in dermatology, the same is with psychologists, even though it isn’t officially on the degree. So while one might be really good for helping someone deal with abuse, if one’s main challenge is overcoming addiction a different psychologist might be the answer. This reason as well causes people to give up when they just look someone up in the phonebook, because it isn’t always obvious what the specific doctor’s specialty is, and when they go and it just doesn’t help them they think they have no hope with therapy.
I am not simply speculating, I am talking from experience.
Therefore my suggestion to someone who would like to see a psychologist is to first talk it over in general terms with someone who you feel ‘knows what he/she’s talking about’ and is ‘with the situation’ and have them direct you to someone they think is right for you.
Well guess what – I’m sure the Rambam himself disagreed!
According to the Rambam we can fathom nothing at all about Hashem. I do not believe he ever studied kabbala, and if you study enough Rambam I doubt you’ll believe it either. Look in the Iggeros Harambam, they bring those supposed ‘letters’ and there is almost no doubt that they are forgeries.
Derech Hamelech-
Not that it couldn’t be done just that it would take too long.
I must disagree with you. The Rambam goes so far as to say that Aristotle got it right for someone who didn’t have the tradition we do. He explains with a mashal of a man who grows up alone on an island – he would devise fantastic scientific theories to explain his existence, simply because no one ever told him that he was born from a man and a woman or that a woman even exists. In theory he would be approaching the problem of his existence in the correct manner, he is simply missing information that is impossible for him to obtain. (See ibid 2:17)
As for the DH, I do not wish to debate it’s merits and demerits. I only wanted to say that the proof you brought (the article on simpletoremember) is not perfect, and in my opinion it still boils down to emunah.
Regarding the Gemara in Chullin, while in aggadic passages I am perfectly willing to say that they weren’t talking literally, I am sorry but I find it difficult that the Gemara is hiding sod in an obviously halachic Gemara. Once you go down that road where do you end, if you say that every place where their facts seem to be grounded in observation they were really talking about something else, then perhaps the halachos were never meant to be taken literally, and we should cross out half of Yoreh De’ah. Besides, I quoted a Rambam who says in no uncertain terms that Chazal didn’t always get it right in matters of Science and Mathematics.
cucumber-
From my personal experience I think you should speak in general terms with a qualified teacher, rebbe, rabbi, etc. and ask them if they think you should see a psychologist. Therapy can be very effective, but not everyone gains from it, and going to the wrong shrink can sometimes do more damage than good. You just need to find him/her, but there’s someone in every community, usually someone who keeps a low profile but does a lot behind the scenes, who is well qualified to give you advice as to whether or not you should see a professional, and what kind, and sometimes even give you a specific name. Just please don’t use trial and error, because it can hurt badly.
I went to visit a rebbe on purim and he demanded that I give him my keys. He said, “If you drank, you better give me your keys. If you didn’t drink, then you don’t have a chezkas kashrus and I certainly need to take away your keys!”
Because alcohol lowers a person’s inhibitions. Were you looking for a deeper answer?
The Gemara learns out the idea of having a makom kavu’a for davening from Avraham, about whom the Torah indicates he returned to the same place to daven. But what is the significance of davening in the same place every day? I once heard a vort as follows: The first time Avraham davened was for Sodom, it was after that story that we find he returned to his place and davened again. What is very significant about that is that Hashem did not listen to him the first time, as Hashem ended up destroying Sodom! A regular person might have said, I must not be davening in the right spot, I must not be saying the right words, etc. etc. But Avraham said, no, if I wasn’t answered it is because I need to be better, ??? ???? ???? ??? ??, and the place hardly matters. Therefore the next time he davened he returned to exactly the same place where he had not been answered before, because he wanted to show that he understood what really mattered.
In light of this pshat I think it is ironic that someone would actually hurt someone else in order to never miss sitting in his makom kavu’a. You are right, he completely missed the boat, and hopefully someone will set him straight.
How many times do we have to do this?
First of all, if there is not a single Gemara which says a certain thing is frowned upon, you will have a hard time convincing me that it is problematic. And certainly if it is not mentioned in the rishonim or in the Shulchan Aruch. So please, somebody, show me a source that says that ‘converted’ non Jewish music, or even the real thing, is inherently a problem.
Second of all, there are sources that indicate the opposite. The Gemara in Chagigah says that Acher went off because his mother used to listen to the music of the Greeks. But wait, Rashi goes out of his way to explain that the problem was that she was violating the takanah not to listen to any music out of mourning for the churban. Why didn’t he just say of course, the goyishe music has a ta’am that is metamtem the lev??
Also, let me quote myself, from about 8 months ago, regarding using non Jewish songs in davening:
“The Mishnah B’rurah (53 s.k. 82) says it is mutar unless the song is meyuchad specifically for mass. Therefore if it is a song that is sung both outside the church as well (l’havdil, parallel to the tunes chazzanim use for l’cha dodi and mimkomcha etc., not the actual nusach) then it is fine. He is quoting a Bach (Shu”t Bach haYeshanim 127) and though I don’t have one offhand I distinctly remember that the Bach’s reason that such a song is problematic is because of uv’chukoseihem lo seileichu, (which applies to anything meyuchad for avodah zara, not because of any inherent tumah) which does not apply to regular songs of non Jews specifically because of what I mentioned above that music is a chochmah, and he quotes the gemara in Avodah Zara that “lav minayhu gamrinan”, i.e. the goy didn’t “make it up”, he just thought of it.
The same halacha is found in Birkei Yosef of the Chida, if I remember correctly it’s in 560 by the g’zeirah not to listen to music after the churban.”
For the rest of that discussion, see http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/non-jewish-jewish-music/page/2
Grandmaster-
Rav Breil, the Rebbi of the Pachad Yiztchok, teaches us that we do not even entertain the possibility of a statement in Chazal not coming from the Torah.
Allow me to paraphrase a Gemara in Chullin:
[paraphrasing again]:
The Rambam says that through limud haTorah and through contemplation of the briah a person will come to have emunah.
While that may be the case once one accepts the premise that God does exist and that he gave us the Torah, the Rambam is explicit that this is not the case for someone who is searching by way of pure logic. He writes [and I paraphrase]:
The speech is fairly logical and straightforward. In order to disprove it, you would have to introduce some pretty shaky hypotheses including the DH.
I do not wish to debate the technicalities of the DH and I doubt the mods would allow it anyway, but suffice it to say that it is only because you have a prior belief of Torah miSinai that you reject the hypothesis. As SJS correctly pointed out there are logical ways around, and even problems, with that argument. As a matter of fact I recently emailed four problems I had with it to a prominent Rabbi in this field and I am currently awaiting his response. The point is that from a purely academic standpoint it would seem that the DH is very viable. It is only because of emunah that you reject it out of hand.
The creation of a paradox should still be within means of an omnipotent being, do you not agree?
According to the Rambam, this is a serious mistake. Again, I quote [paraphrasing]:
Let me just say that I agree to what SJS and Charliehall have been saying; I am just adding my piece.
????? ???? ?????
Yossi –
I cannot say that I don’t sometimes think to myself, “Hey, that sounds like a person I might really like,” and, as a single guy I really do understand your sentiments. However, I agree with the mods that it is a bad idea – at least according to the general spirit of this site, which is, at least from my perspective, trying to present information at a standard expected of the name it bears, and a forum for discussions of such ideas that would be discussed in the ‘yeshiva world,’ but not in any way a social network or a dating site. I don’t really think the reasons need to be explained.
Oh and by the way, who says you’re not a minor? Or a married person looking for something on the side? I don’t think the mods would find an efficient way to find that out, and would probably find themselves in a lot of trouble if something like that did happen.
It cries for all of the circumstances which led them from being a happy couple to reaching the situation they are in now. The fact that what started with great celebration is now seen as a prison is certainly something to cry for, even when divorce is the proper decision.
The sin’as chinam of the kamtza and bar kamtza story is what actually caused the destruction of the second beis hamikdash, historically speaking. I think the fact that Hashem allowed the events to play out in a way that this story was the cause, motivated the Chachamim to say that this was the reason as well. Not exactly like, but similar to the concept of ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?”? ????.
Maybe Joseph doesn’t exist, and he’s just a bad joke being played by the mods…
Someone I know commented, “Attn NY: Please salt your sidewalks, they taste bland when I fall.”
I am looking for someone who is a girl, Jewish and living according to halacha, and I am looking for chemistry.
Truthfully I know there are a number of factors that may or may not enable this ‘chemistry’ to be there; she will probably have to be sensitive, intelligent, and pretty. But I don’t have a list with which I scrutinize each girl and when I check off the entire list say, “Hey, lets get married.” And sometimes it can just ‘click’ with a girl even though she didn’t appear to have those qualities. So basically, if I think I like her I’ll go out with her and see how it goes, kinda regardless of what her ‘qualifications’ are, and if not, not.
Only thing is I need someone who will be interested in a guy like me. That seems kind of hard to come by, because I think the ‘me’ on paper does not accurately represent the ‘me’ in real life. Not that on paper I have serious issues, but that it ostensibly portrays me as something I’m not.
?????? ?????
metrodriver-
Hmm. Now I’m gonna say that Yersl is your sister, and you’re both talking about the same person. Do I get my promotion now?
???? ????
???? ?? ????
metrodriver-
I’m gonna assume that’s because “Yesrl” is a she. But since you put “brother” in quotation marks the relative you referred to could also be a she. Good detective work huh?
Shabbos
If Rav Belsky says it’s ok; it’s ok and end of story.
If he’s your rav, then yes.
?? ??? ????